EU: Turkish Accession

Lord Cobbold: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the proposed accession of Turkey to the European Union.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government strongly support Turkey's bid to join the European Union. Turkey is an important strategic partner for Britain and the European Union, a NATO ally, and a major market for UK and EU exporters. A stable, democratic and prosperous Turkey, anchored in the EU, would be an enormous prize and a powerful demonstration that Islam, democracy and economic success are compatible. The Government look forward to a decision by the European Council in December to open accession negotiations with Turkey without delay.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, but does she agree that there are important and controversial issues in respect of Turkish membership that have not arisen in respect of previous applicant countries? Given these important issues, will the Government provide time for an early full debate on this subject in your Lordships' House?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the question of time for a debate is a matter for the usual channels and is very much in the hands of noble Lords, should they choose to suggest such a debate.
	This has, indeed, been a controversial subject and the discussion about it has continued over a number of years. But I remind the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, that the European Commission recommendation to the European Council on 6 October concluded that Turkey has,
	"sufficiently fulfilled the Copenhagen political criteria and that accession negotiations should be opened".
	Therefore, the question is whether the criteria have been sufficiently fulfilled to begin those negotiations.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, during the transition process for the east European countries which have now joined the European Union, as a government we provided a number of pairing arrangements with ministries from those countries and a substantial number of police and judicial training programmes? Are similar pairing arrangements and training programmes yet planned by Her Majesty's Government to assist the Turkish Government and the Turkish national and local administrations in the substantial changes that they now need to go through?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that there will be a great deal of discussion about the mechanisms that may be adduced during a period of negotiation. The initial question is whether or not those negotiations should begin. If the decision is made to begin the negotiations, I think that they are likely to run over a number of years. Indeed, many facets of Turkey's membership are to be discussed. Of course, the kind of arrangements that we have seen in relation to other countries provide a good example of how some of the issues can be resolved through negotiation and partnerships.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that genuine progress has been made in respect of human rights so far as concerns Turkey? For example, do the reports in recent months of continued torture, beheadings, limb amputations and the skinning of captured Kurdish guerrillas and reports of village clearances—for example, in Ilicak in Sirnak in August—really represent the sort of progress that should be expected?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, certainly the European Commission thought that progress on this matter had been sufficient. I think that we know from discussions in your Lordships' House hereunto that the Turkish Government have made enormous progress, over the past two years in particular, through the adoption of a series of constitutional and legislative reforms, including the abolition of the death penalty, greater freedom of expression, association and religion, ratification of international agreements on human rights, and greater cultural rights for Kurds and other minorities. There is now a clear policy of zero tolerance of torture, and there is growing evidence of an improved implementation record. But I acknowledge that these matters will be very much the subject of the negotiations, should they begin in December.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I know that the Minister is aware of support from this side of the House for the goal of eventual Turkish membership of the European Union. Can the noble Baroness reassure the House that Her Majesty's Government are doing everything they can to encourage Turkey to continue down the reformist course, especially regarding education, on which there have been some recent disturbing reports, and not to waver in its resolve to meet the Copenhagen criteria in due course?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I can indeed do that. I spoke to Her Majesty's Ambassador in Ankara before coming to the Chamber this afternoon and we covered a number of points, including the human rights issues. I think that the education question arises particularly in relation to the Kurds, and in that respect minority rights have certainly been strengthened, including measures to allow individuals to study. The schools which allow the use of the Kurdish language are private schools; that is not yet happening in state schools. But there is greater freedom in broadcasting and in registering names in Kurdish. The education questions raised by the noble Baroness are important. But, again, I point out to your Lordships that the general consensus is that sufficient reform has taken place to allow the negotiations on accession to begin.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is wrong to oppose the membership of Turkey on the basis that most of its people are Muslims?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I would agree with that. I hope that I made that absolutely clear in my opening Answer. It is enormously important that the European Union is not seen as an exclusively Christian club. The European Union already contains some 15 million Muslims and people of many other religions. I endorse what the noble Lord has said wholeheartedly.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the admission of Turkey to the European Union would completely alter the nature of the Union? It would no longer be a European Union but a Eurasian Union. Does she also agree that on population projections, by 2030 Turkey will form the largest part of the European Union, and that that will have enormous implications for the future of the Union?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, all the recent accessions will alter the European Union. The question is whether the union will be altered for the good. The European Union is defined by shared values as much as by its geography. The reform process in Turkey has given Turkey sufficient credentials to allow us to consider the country for these negotiations, as will be the case in December. On the number of people who would join the European Union were those negotiations to be successful, Turkey would not be the largest country in the European Union; at 70 million people, Turkey has 10 million fewer than, for example, Germany. However, it would certainly be a larger partner numerically than France and the United Kingdom, but not by a great deal. I do not accept the fundamental premise of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as I believe is obvious by my answer.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in the event of Turkey's human rights record deteriorating—

Noble Lords: Order!

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are at eight minutes—next Question.

European Public Prosecutor

Lord Tomlinson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of the proposal in the draft Hague programme to begin work on the establishment of a European public prosecutor's office, they now consider that such an office should be established; and what arrangements they have made for parliamentary scrutiny of this and other proposals contained in the draft programme.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Hague programme makes no reference to a European public prosecutor's office. The Government's position on a European public prosecutor remains unchanged. They see no reason to create the post and remain opposed to its establishment. The programme was agreed by the Prime Minister on Friday last and, therefore, will not be submitted for scrutiny. However, we shall write to both Houses outlining the Government's views on it. Any proposals stemming from the programme will be scrutinised as and when they are proposed.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that this is a rather daft proposal that refuses to lie down and die? At the time of the draft Hague programme the proposal for a European public prosecutor's office was in the programme, but the fact that it has disappeared from that draft and does not now apply is very welcome. Can my noble friend give me an assurance that the position of Her Majesty's Government remains exactly as stated by Caroline Flint, the Home Office Minister, in her letter to the chairman of the European Select Committee in which she said:
	"The Hague Work Programme should not pre-empt the Constitutional Treaty by proposing contentious measures that can only be brought forward under that Treaty"?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The fact that many other countries joined with us to remove the proposal from the programme caused us considerable satisfaction.

Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the lawyers and other officers of a European public prosecutor's office would not be British—they will come from various foreign countries—they would have some jurisdiction within the United Kingdom, would they not? Will the noble Baroness bear in mind that that may not be popular among the British people?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, not only do I bear that in mind, but it is for that reason that it will not happen.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, while we agree that there is no need for a European public prosecutor's office, does the Minister agree that it is extremely important for member states to co-operate as closely as possible on cross-border crime, particularly drug trafficking, people trafficking and international fraud?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We have been able to do that very successfully. Through that co-operation we have had a number of successes, not least our joint action on European-wide paedophilia. We have managed to catch a number of people who would not otherwise have been brought to justice.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, does the Minister consider that the work of OLAF is sufficiently robust to enable member countries to prosecute fraud against the Community? Does she believe that the role of a public prosecutor might have assisted in that regard?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there has been, as the noble Viscount rightly says, much discussion as to whether OLAF is as efficient and/or as effective as it should be. Noble Lords will know that much work is now being done with Eurojust. I hear the argument that the European prosecutor may have been able to fulfil that role, but I merely say that any such post would be reliant upon the nation states' prosecutors doing their job. That is why we do not believe that it adds any value. The work that we are undertaking on Eurojust, and through Eurodat, in which we participate fully and which we applaud, adds value.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to thank the Government for resisting the application for a European prosecutor so successfully?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I celebrate that congratulation. It will rest long in my memory and in my heart.

Iraq: Deployment of UK Forces

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the monitoring by United Kingdom defence officials of the deployment of British Army units in central Iraq since 27 October has produced satisfactory results in terms of the security and protection of civil society.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Black Watch battle group deployed to north Babil in central Iraq on 27 October. That deployment supports the Iraqi Interim Government strategy of building a free, stable and secure Iraq in which ordinary Iraqis can live their lives free from the constant fear of violence, economic hardship and from political repression and tyranny. Above all, the Iraqi Interim Government are seeking to provide a stable environment under which domestic elections can take place throughout Iraq in January 2005.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does not the war remain illegal, as does the sacking of Fallujah right now? Bearing in mind that the UK Armed Forces have been successful in not causing excessive casualties among innocent Iraqi civilians—unlike the incompetent and reckless performance of the US armed forces—will the Minister give us further assurance that urgent action will be taken from now on in our zones to protect properly innocent Iraqi civilians and to reduce the clear danger to our own soldiers?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord when he says that what is happening in Fallujah is illegal or unlawful. Prime Minister Allawi declared a state of emergency law in Fallujah and Ramadi on Sunday. Any military action in Fallujah or, indeed, elsewhere takes place to create the conditions for the conduct of free and fair elections for the Iraqi people. The House hardly needs reminding of the efforts made to negotiate peacefully with the insurgents and terrorists who are based in Fallujah. The Iraqi Government have done everything possible to secure national reconciliation and a peaceful solution in that city.
	The Prime Minister has offered an amnesty to armed groups. He has supported the creation of a broadly representative national council. He has conducted intense efforts at dialogue with all groups, particularly with representatives of Fallujah, and he has made clear his determination, which I presume this House supports—in fact I am sure the House supports; I wonder if the noble Lord does—to press ahead with the first national elections in January. If that does not take place now, what alternative solution does the noble Lord have?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government will give the highest priority to the security and protection of the Black Watch battle group, thereby ensuring a safer place for civilians in central Iraq?

Lord Bach: My Lords, of course we will. The question is a proper one. We are concerned that the Black Watch are equipped and supported appropriately for the range of tasks they face. The situation they encounter, as we know already in northern Babil, is not greatly different from that in some parts of MND (South East), but in other ways it is more difficult.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the massive publicity and political debate surrounding the redeployment of the Black Watch in Iraq has done nothing for that brave and distinguished regiment, except to make it an attractive publicity target for any attacker?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree absolutely with what my noble friend says. The House will remember the question asked yesterday in this House by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford about publicity at the present time. But if that was not enough, it may not have escaped noble Lords' attention that in the Times today a Black Watch lance corporal said:
	"We don't want to go anywhere. If we pulled out now, we'd feel like we've failed.
	"It's a hindrance when people at home call for us to be pulled out. We know they're only trying to help, but it's not helping us at all. We're here. We're staying, so please give us the support to carry on and get the job done".

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, the Minister set out the objectives of the present exercise. Can he give us an assurance that before the Cabinet committed British troops for this purpose it had approved convincing plans for the aftermath of the immediate battle, aimed at the objectives which the Minister set out? Or did it once again, as after the main battle, simply obey a plan devised by others, based on assumptions which quickly collapsed?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord—of course I respect his deep experience—that this is a request from the Iraqi Government and should be seen as such. The Black Watch deployment, if that is what he is talking about, and our wider deployment in Iraq, is part of the Government's wider commitment to helping the Iraqi people to create the right conditions for them to shape their own future. That, it seems to me, is adequate reason for the Black Watch deployment to take place, and, as I have already attempted to argue, explains what is happening in Fallujah at present.
	Of course, one of the considerations in respect of Fallujah is that if Fallujah is made a free city many Sunnis would be able to vote who would not otherwise be able to vote. There are reconstruction plans for the Sunni areas of Iraq that are impossible to put in place at present because of the presence of the insurgents.

Lord Garden: My Lords—

Baroness Strange: My Lords—

Lord Snape: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is enough time for both questions. I suggest that we hear from these Benches and then from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Lord Snape: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the proposition put forward earlier by my noble friend that the deployment of British troops in Iraq is not a suitable subject for debate in this House or in any other? Does he remember the days of the Falklands War when the Official Opposition, and even the Liberal Party—as it was in those days—properly backed British troops in action, instead of carping and criticising the way they are doing at the moment?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do remember those days. But I have to say that the Official Opposition—and I say this slightly reluctantly—have not for a moment opposed this particular deployment. I wish I could say the same about the Liberal Democrats.

Lord Garden: My Lords—

Baroness Strange: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I said Liberal Democrats, but I had not realised that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, wanted to speak. I suggest that she speaks next and then the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House. Will the Minister please convey to the Black Watch forces now serving in Iraq the thoughts, good wishes and prayers of every single Member of this House?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I will make sure that that is done.

Lord Garden: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether he now has a full replacement for the Black Watch in the south so that security is re-established there, as the attacks on the oil infrastructure are apparently increasing?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as far as concerns the MND (South East), we are content with the present arrangements. The noble Lord knows that a new reserve force is coming in. Of course, if we need more troops in that area we will bring more troops into that area.

School Trips

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they consider to be the value of school trips and their contribution to the curriculum.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, well planned and safely delivered school trips, with learning later reinforced in the classroom, make a valuable contribution to the education of pupils of all ages and abilities. The importance of an enriched curriculum is set out in our Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners. We believe that there are educational and personal benefits to be gained from experiences as diverse as fieldwork, visiting farms, museums and galleries, and outdoor activities.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which was both helpful and very constructive. However, is she aware that—as instanced by the recent advice from the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers to its members—many teachers are afraid of the health and safety risks involved in school trips and of the litigation that could ensue? Given the compensation culture to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has so recently referred, can she give any assurance to teachers who take school trips that this issue can be addressed?

Baroness Andrews: Yes, indeed, my Lords. We are very grateful to all those teachers. There are 10 million pupil visits a year, and teachers continue to ensure that pupils have those wide experiences. We want there to be more and widened opportunities in this area. But teachers are concerned, and we recognise their concern. In the past year, the Secretary of State has met the NASUWT to open up a dialogue and look for ways in which we can reassure teachers and reduce the barriers that they see as inhibiting the possibility of such opportunities. There is a lot of additional training at LEA level and in schools, involving educational visits co-ordinators and professional development. I think that that will create a better climate of confidence where more will happen.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that one of the problems is that any teacher, whether in the state or private sector, who wants to take his or her pupils on a school trip is obliged to fill in an extremely comprehensive, lengthy and time-consuming risk assessment that covers everything, including the risk of crossing a road? That is such a burden on already hard-working teachers that they find it easier simply not to conduct the trip. What is she going to do about that?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are aware that there are complaints about bureaucracy. It is absolutely clear that we must get the balance right between having a safe and successful trip and not overburdening teachers. We have read—although the Department for Education and Skills has no evidence for this—that a pond-scooping excursion merited 16 forms. The DfES guidance runs to two pages and entails one form. So there is a definite balance to be struck. David Bell, the chief inspector, recently said:
	"We do not have to tie the system up with risk assessment and filling out endless forms. It would be a terrible shame if we lose those opportunities, which are so valuable".
	We entirely agree.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in pursuing this matter with the teaching profession, could the Government at the same time follow up the problems of voluntary organisations, where the fears of leaders and the problems of filling in forms are doing an equal amount of damage? Trips by voluntary organisations—the Scouts, the Guides and such groups—are of crucial value in the education of young people. Will the Government extend the whole operation to voluntary organisations?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right: there is a very valuable partnership with the voluntary sector in many different ways. Schools are working with organisations as diverse as Learning through Landscapes, the Scouts and so on. When we create a climate of confidence, we include the voluntary sector as valuable partners. I take note of what the noble Baroness said. She may be interested to know that we have asked the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme and the Scout Association to map the extent of existing residential provision for us and help us work out how to create more capacity in the system.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the recent Better Regulation Task Force report, which considered the blame culture and largely concluded that many of the fears about litigation were unwarranted? Might it be advisable to circulate a summary of that report to the teacher unions and education authorities to give them more confidence to take part in trips in future?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is an extremely good idea and I will take it back to the department. The DfES has produced some excellent guidance. If teachers and schools follow that, they should be able not only to guarantee a safe and successful trip but to dismiss very swiftly any unfair accusations in the unfortunate event of an injury to a pupil. The number of tragic accidents is, thankfully, very small and has been even smaller in recent years. Better risk awareness, better safety provision and better, updated guidance are certainly having an impact.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that for children with special educational needs trips have a particular value and importance, and that issues of health and safety should never be allowed to be a barrier to such trips taking place, as often appears to be the case?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I entirely agree. I have seen at first hand the transforming impact that an experience like that can have for a child with special needs—not only in terms of the curriculum but in building a relationship with staff and other children, developing a team culture and learning how to be responsible. Those are all personal and social skills that we very much want to encourage in all children, but especially those who have some difficulties.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the discouragement of teachers and local education authorities is by no means the only factor that is counter-productive for school trips? Like many other farmers, I would welcome children coming to see round my farm. But one is inevitably put off enormously by the high risk of claims arising in circumstances where the danger, although a risk to which one is happily exposing one's own children, is thought to be too great for schoolchildren coming to see farming done and one's insurance company is reluctant for one to host such trips.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the noble Viscount's experience, because one partnership with schools that is very successful is that with city farms. We want children in the inner cities, especially, to have opportunities to engage with rural activities and experiences. There are not many instances of litigation. As I have explained, if guidance is followed there should be complete security for teachers that they are protected against it.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the Minister refers to guidance, but we have not heard what that guidance would be. When my children were at school, they had accidents, but today children seem to be involved in incidents for which someone must be blamed.

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords; my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was eloquent on the latter issue this morning and we welcomed what he said. As for the guidance, it is statutory, DfES guidance which is updated regularly. In 2003, for example, a new supplement on water sports was added to the guidance. So when high-risk activities take place, the department looks closely at whether the guidance is efficient and appropriate and what else can be developed.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, the Minister said that the guidance consisted of two pages. I have here a set of forms to be filled in that my wife, who teaches English for Speakers of Other Languages classes, had to fill in during the summer when she was taking an ESOL class to a local country park for a couple of hours in the afternoon. It consists of 13 pages, many of which have to be signed and countersigned by everyone in the bureaucracy and hierarchy, and some of which have to be filled in for each person on the trip. That is for young adults, not even young children. Does the Minister not think that a 13-page form such as that is excessive and that some stronger guidance ought to be given to stop that ludicrous bureaucracy?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I said, it is important that the risk assessment is made and that it fits the activity involved. I do not know what that ESOL trip involved. When I talked about the risk assessment forms for the DfES being two pages, that was a basic outline. The point is that it is part of the employer's duty to provide what is practicable and reasonable. We are commissioning research to consider LEAs' good practice and spread it. We may well be able to achieve a better balance for local authorities, some of which may be slightly exaggerating the situation.

Inland Revenue: IT Systems

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are satisfied with the administrative procedures and integrity of the Inland Revenue's information technology systems.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Inland Revenue manages an extremely complex IT environment with more than 140 major business applications and 87,000 users. No large and complex environment can ever be free from error, but the Government are satisfied with the administrative procedures and integrity of the Inland Revenue's IT systems.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he share with the House what Treasury Ministers said to the chairman of the Board of the Inland Revenue when it found that perhaps hundreds of thousands of taxpayers were losing out on refunds because the PAYE system had deleted their records? I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that that is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. What timetable has the Inland Revenue been given for dealing with it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I will not share what Treasury Ministers said to the Inland Revenue, because I do not know and it would not be my job to know. I recognise that there was a problem with deleted open cases for PAYE. It was found that housekeeping deletion procedures had taken place before rather than after the final review of cases of taxpayers who had stopped employment more than three years ago and not taken it up again. Inevitably, it was a small minority. That was announced in the Inland Revenue's annual report last month. A survey has been undertaken to find out who they are and how many there are. The results will be announced within the next three weeks.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who received an income tax refund. I think that it was on time, but if when the Inland Revenue reads this it finds out that it was late, perhaps it will send me the interest. Paragraph 116 of the annual report indicates that the Inland Revenue was aware of the error. It is perfectly understandable that there were errors in such a complex area. But the Inland Revenue understood and recognised the error as far back as autumn last year. When does my noble friend think it will be able to rectify the problem?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed, my Lords, the Inland Revenue discovered the error in autumn 2003. It consulted the National Audit Office on how the announcement should be made. The National Audit Office agreed with the Revenue that it should be made in the Revenue's annual report. It will be scrutinised by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee in early 2005. I have already said that the number of people affected will be announced within the next three weeks. The function has been corrected. Open cases are no longer deleted.

Lord Newby: My Lords, over the period between now and 2007–08 Her Majesty's Inland Revenue and Customs are due to lose 16,000 staff. According to their own efficiency technical notes, that is to be achieved principally by realising the benefits of investment in ICT. Given the revenue's patchy track record on IT generally, what reassurance can the Minister give that customer service levels for taxpayers will not suffer during the process?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I need only refer to my earlier Answer. There will inevitably be failings in an IT environment with 140 major business applications and 87,000 users, not to mention the number of taxpayers. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has justifiably drawn attention to one of them. One need only look at the number of failings identified to see that they are a very small minority and that fundamentally the integrity of the IT systems is sound.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied with the security arrangements for the Inland Revenue's computers against hackers, viruses, worms and so on? Can he share with us statistics on the number of instances where that security has been breached in the past five years?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware of only one case where there was a failure of security due to hacking. It was a single information service provider; the issue has been corrected. If my noble friend has evidence of any more, I will be glad to pursue the matter.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that in April and May last year software errors resulted in the overpayment of tax credits to some 455,000 households, amounting to some £94 million? What steps have been taken to address not only that but also a wider unease, apparent in the Auditor General's report, about the accuracy and reliability of the data used by the Inland Revenue?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can confirm that 455,000 households received incorrect payments—they were overpayments—but 373,000 of them were less than £300, an amount which, since taxpayers could not necessarily be expected to identify it from their own records, will be written off and not charged to them.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, since there is to be a merger between the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, will there not be considerable difficulties with the integration of information technology? What consideration has been given to that in view of the undertakings to bring the two together?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is one of the issues that will arise during the project. I can assure the noble Lord that it will require the approval of Parliament and it can be debated at that time. There ought to be a moratorium on the admission to this House of former Chief Secretaries to the Treasury.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is it not remarkable that the Inland Revenue did not have some form of back-up to avoid the sort of deletions that have taken place?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, records are normally kept until the final review. In one case, which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has rightly identified, housekeeping deletions, which are necessary to ensure that databases do not become overloaded, were carried out too early. The Inland Revenue recognises that that was a failing, but it is not a general failing.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	The package of working practices agreed to in July 2002 was to take effect for an experimental period of two Sessions. This report from the Procedure Committee makes recommendations about how the House should proceed thereafter.
	The Procedure Committee based its consideration on the report of a Leader's Group, which sat throughout the summer and into the autumn to review the experiment. For convenience, the report before the House today sets out each of the conclusions and recommendations of the Leader's Group in turn so that noble Lords need refer only to a single document. But I should make clear that what I invite the House to agree to today are the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, which are printed in bold type.
	The Procedure Committee concluded that in broad terms the experimental working practices have been a success and should be adopted permanently. Features such as pre-legislative scrutiny and the target rising time are now almost taken for granted. Although some noble Lords hold contrary views, the arrangements for Grand Committees on Bills and for our morning start on Thursdays are now fairly well accepted. We therefore recommend that they should continue.
	One area where we recommend a change is in the arrangements for Starred Questions—I think that I hear a sigh of relief from noble Lords. I know that it is widely felt that five Questions in 40 minutes have been too much. Four Questions in 30 minutes provides a tighter, more focused and more incisive Question Time, and there is also an advantage in having the same arrangements on every sitting day. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will welcome that recommendation.
	I turn now to what is, I know, a more controversial issue. It is the recommendation that further types of business could—I emphasise "could"—be taken in the Moses Room. The Procedure Committee recommends that some additional delegated legislation, debates on some Select Committee reports and some Unstarred Questions could be taken there, though only with the concurrence of those concerned in each case. Given the pressure on time in the Chamber, the recommendation is intended to widen the range of options open to those seeking business in the House. The committee recognised that only on some occasions would that option be appropriate. But some Back-Benchers might, for example, welcome the opportunity for an early Unstarred Question in the Moses Room rather than a lengthy and uncertain wait for time on the Floor of the House.
	The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, would deprive Members of this new procedural opportunity. I am sure that he and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will outline their reasons for opposing the debate of any committee reports in the Moses Room. But what is proposed is only permissive. It will add to the options, not foreclose them. The requirement that business be arranged in the Moses Room with the concurrence of only those involved provides a safeguard to those who would not wish to follow that route.
	Following debate in the Procedure Committee, informal discussions have already been initiated between the usual channels and Select Committee chairmen in order to identify further possible ways of providing dedicated time for committee debates. But I can see no compelling reason why we should wait for the outcome of those discussions before benefiting from what is proposed here. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel obliged to press his amendment. I beg to move.

Moved, That the 3rd Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. (HL Paper 184).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	The report can be found at the following address: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldprohse/184/184.pdf

Lord Barnett: My Lords, as I have a number of points, and I imagine that a number of other noble Lords might as well, would it be more sensible to have a debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, now? We could then move on to other parts of his report later.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, once the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, has moved his amendment on his item of business, the debate will follow. Any noble Lord will be able to talk about other matters in the report, and I hope that they will.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I am also confused. Can the noble Lord say in simple terms whether we will now debate only the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton?

Noble Lords: No.

Lord Peston: My Lords, but if we are now going to debate everything, it will be just a mishmash. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has a focused amendment with a focused problem, which many of us would like to debate. But, as my noble friend Lord Barnett pointed out, there are a number of other important matters, which we would rather debate separately. Can the Chairman of Committees tell us whether we are to do it that way, which is the sensible way, or the mishmash way, which of course is very dear to your Lordships' hearts?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are going to do it the way which is very dear to your Lordships' hearts.

Lord Norton of Louth: rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraph 10, which shall be remitted back to the committee with an instruction that the committee should reconsider the paragraph together with possible alternative means of providing additional time for debates on Select Committee reports in lieu of the provision of time in Grand Committees in the Moses Room."

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, we may be discussing a report from the Procedure Committee, but the issue involved is not simply one of procedure. It involves an important issue of principle affecting the relationship between this House and its committees.
	As we have heard, paragraph 10 of the report endorses the recommendation of the Leader's Group that debates on Select Committee reports may be debated in the Moses Room. Perhaps I may explain why that recommendation is not acceptable.
	Select Committees of your Lordships' House engage in serious and sustained inquiries. They produce authoritative, evidence-based reports. The work of the committees fulfils a number of important functions. The committees serve as important links between Parliament and bodies outside. They serve to inform debate. They scrutinise public policy, not just in the context of the United Kingdom but also in the European Union. They influence public policy. The contribution that they make is substantial and is delivered at relatively little cost.
	In order to maximise their effectiveness, they need to maintain a clear link with the Chamber. They derive their authority from the House and they report to it. Debating reports provides an important opportunity for other Members to contribute and for a Minister to respond. The leverage of the committees is enhanced by their reports being debated on the Floor, and in prime time.
	Hiving off debates to the Moses Room raises a number of serious problems which have not been addressed by the Leader's Group or the Procedure Committee. The recommendation sends out the wrong message, not only to the committees but also to those who have given evidence to them. It would appear—perception is important—that the committees were being marginalised.
	Where does that proposal come from? Paragraph 23 of the Leader's Group report states:
	"Building on the success of the Grand Committee on Northern Ireland orders, we recommend that other types of business could be taken in the Moses Room, including some other delegated legislation and debates of some select committee reports".
	Paragraph 10 of the Procedure Committee report claims that debating committee reports would,
	"widen the . . . options open to those seeking business in the House, in view of the pressure on time in the Chamber".
	So we have two arguments for the recommendation. One is the success of debating Northern Ireland orders in the Moses Room and the other is the pressure on time in the Chamber. Let me take those in order.
	The first derives from not very clear logic. We move from one type of business, subject to one set of procedural rules, to a completely different type, subject to other rules. Neither the Leader's Group nor the Procedure Committee appears to have given any thought to the procedures that would be applied in debating committee reports. I am not sure what the criteria are for determining "success" in debating Northern Ireland orders—we are not told—but I simply do not see how one can derive from observation of the way in which Northern Ireland orders are considered that Select Committee reports can be similarly considered. One is not comparing like with like.
	The same would apply if we were to look at the Committee stage of Bills being taken in Grand Committee. The procedure is different. In any event, Bills taken in Grand Committee come to the House for Report stage. If Select Committee reports are debated in the Moses Room, the link with the Chamber is lost.
	The second argument appears superficially attractive but is simply not supported by the data. We are invited to accept that debating Select Committee reports takes up the time of the House to the extent that this is a problem—otherwise this proposal would not be before us—and that this time could be devoted to other, presumably more important, business.
	How much time is taken up debating Select Committee reports? So far this year, from 1 January to the end of last month, the House has devoted 2.16 per cent of its time debating "take note" Motions on Select Committee reports. Nor is this year exceptional. One has only to look at the data contained in the annual report, just published, to see the figures for the past four financial years. How much time is taken up debating reports from the European Union Committee? In 2003–04 it was 1.8 per cent; the previous year it was 1.4 per cent. How much time was taken up debating reports from the Science and Technology Committee? In 2003–04 it was 0.2 per cent and the previous year it was 0.6 per cent.
	Is it not the case though that too many reports are being put down for debate? Looking at the Order Paper, one might believe that to be the case. However, when one looks at the dates that they were published, one sees a very different picture. One of the reports was published in April. Another, the report of my committee, the Constitution Committee, on the regulatory state, was published in May. We had the Government's response within two months, but we are still waiting for a debate. The reports on the Order Paper were published over a span of nine months, which basically averages one report a month.
	There is no evidence that Select Committees are not exercising restraint in recommending reports for debate. They already exercise the rigour called for in paragraph 11 of the Procedure Committee report. In the case of my own committee, we have published 31 reports since we were appointed in February 2001. How many of those have we recommended for debate? The number is three. For anyone with a slim grasp of maths, that averages out at one a year. The topics of the three reports—devolution, the regulatory state and the legislative process—can hardly be deemed to be marginal.
	Why the need to free up time, little though it will be, on the Floor of the House? After all, we now have the option of referring Bills to Grand Committee. The annual report shows that in the financial year 2003–04, there were 63 days of Grand Committee sittings, totalling 225 hours. That represents a considerable, indeed an unprecedented, saving of time on the Floor of the House. Given those figures, there is no obvious reason why the demands on the time of the House are such as to justify this recommendation.
	Indeed, the original Leader's Group report in 2002 promised more prime time on the Floor for committee reports. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 26 of the report, which is unambiguous in its recommendation. It states:
	"The greater use of Grand Committees that we are recommending will make more time available in the Chamber even with a cut-off around 10.00 pm. This time should be taken up by increasing the number of days set aside for backbench debates on Wednesdays, by scheduling debates on select committee reports in prime time, and by meeting more of the requests for debates on broad general topics . . . We recommend that three additional Wednesdays be allotted for backbench debates in each session, and that more debates on select committee reports and on general topics be held in prime time on the floor of the House".
	The desirability of more reports being debated in prime time has been endorsed by the House. That is recorded in the Companion to the Standing Orders. There was at least one proposal before the Procedure Committee, from the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that was designed to give effect to the view of the House. There are other proposals that might be considered.
	This is an extremely important matter. I do not believe that we can simply endorse what the Procedure Committee has recommended and, in so doing, consign debates on Select Committee reports to the Moses Room. The Chairman of Committees says that reports will be referred only by agreement. However, I do not think that we should be going down this route in the first place. It seeks to nudge us in the wrong direction and it misses the point of what I have just been arguing.
	The noble Lord also says that if this amendment is carried, other proposals embodied in paragraph 10 will be lost. I invite noble Lords to read the paragraph to see if they can identify anything in it so vital that we must agree to it forthwith. I see no reason why the Procedure Committee should not take this paragraph away and come back with proposals fairly quickly. I also see no reason why the Procedure Committee should not look at the issue again with a view to giving effect to the previously expressed wish of the House, rather than as appears to be the case here, seeking to negate it. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraph 10, which shall be remitted back to the committee with an instruction that the committee should reconsider the paragraph together with possible alternative means of providing additional time for debates on Select Committee reports in lieu of the provision of time in Grand Committees in the Moses Room".—(Lord Norton of Louth.)

Baroness Amos: My Lords, in speaking to the report of the Procedure Committee, I begin by paying a series of tributes: first and foremost to the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, who painstakingly negotiated the package of reforms which the House agreed as an experiment in 2002; and next to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the late Lord Rippon of Hexham. Their reports on the sitting patterns of the two Houses, in 1992 and 1994, set us on the road to where we are today.
	I also pay tribute to the members of the group which reviewed the experiment earlier this year under my chairmanship. I should say that I did not look forward to the task. I knew that it had not been easy to reach agreement on the earlier report. But my task was made considerably easier by the constructive way in which the group operated. Our discussions were well informed and candid. On behalf of the group, I thank all Members of the House who responded to our questionnaire in June, and I thank also our Clerk, Mary Ollard.
	Last, I thank the Chairman of Committees and the members of the Procedure Committee who reviewed our findings and endorsed them. Of course I hope that the House will do so as well.
	I have no hesitation in pronouncing the experiment a success. At the heart of the experiment is the trade-off between more Grand Committees and fewer late nights. In the previous Session it can be argued that the trade-off was not in balance. There were more Grand Committee sittings, but still too many late nights. This Session has been markedly better, with very few serious breaches of the target rising times. The group report comments in paragraph 5 that,
	"It has taken a little time for the target to become established",
	and we concluded that,
	"the increased use of Grand Committee has greatly contributed to increased success in meeting the target rising time, as has the greater experience of the usual channels in working to a specific target".
	The usual channels have done their share of learning during this experimental period. I should share with the House that I have told my Chief Whip that if we get to the end of next week without sitting until midnight, he will be able to take off his L-plates.
	The introduction of target rising times has of course been coupled with other changes in the direction of greater predictability, in particular the early announcement of dates for recesses and Friday sittings. Neither of these was part of the original package, but I believe that we all find them very helpful.
	I shall touch briefly on other elements of the package. Pre-legislative scrutiny is now well established as part of the legislative process, and we have taken our first steps in carry-over of public Bills. I welcome the endorsement of the Procedure Committee of where we are on these. And I think that most noble Lords will welcome our conclusions on Starred Questions and topical Questions. The fifth Question seemed a good idea at the time, but I believe experience has shown that it is one too many. Having more topical Questions, on the other hand, has been a successful innovation. Noble Lords should note that the report gives the Clerks a mandate to make sure that they really are topical.
	As regards the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, of course we all value the work of our Select Committees. But time in the Chamber is not always available when committees would like. The Chairman of Committees has explained clearly that what the Procedure Committee proposes would be voluntary, and is intended to be additional. Existing opportunities for debates on the Floor of the House will continue to be offered in the usual way. I hope, on that basis, that the House will accept the Procedure Committee recommendation. Moreover, I am pleased to confirm what was said by the Chairman of Committees, that the usual channels are having positive discussions with my noble friend Lord Grenfell about ways of assisting committees with their concerns. I know that some noble Lords are not entirely happy with where we are now, but we have made real progress and I hope that the House recognises that.
	None of this could have been achieved without a high level of co-operation in the usual channels. So I should like to pay tribute to those unsung heroes, the Chief Whips. Their good sense and good relations keep things moving even when the political temperature is high.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that in saying that, I have not damaged the careers of the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Cope.
	But the usual channels cannot do it alone. So I conclude by quoting again briefly from the group's report. These words are repeated and endorsed by the Procedure Committee in paragraph 11. The context is target rising times, but they apply across the board:
	"Responsibility . . . rests not only with the business managers, but with all members of the House through self-regulation".
	If this Session has been a success, the credit belongs to all noble Lords who have contributed to the business of the House. We are all responsible for making our procedures work well.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, for reasons that I do not think can be genetically explained, I seem to have been born an optimist. I hope, therefore, that at the end of this debate we shall receive an assurance from the Chairman of Committees that the question of debate times is not a closed subject as a result of paragraph 10, which would appear to make it so, but that there will be further full discussions in the Procedure Committee of alternatives, because we have not yet explored all of those.
	In the absence of such an assurance, I have to tell the House that I would support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, even through the Division Lobby if necessary. On that I have the full backing of the Select Committee on the European Union, of which I have the honour to be chairman.
	I share the dismay of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, at the apparent intent of parts of paragraph 10 of the Procedure Committee report. Permit me to take a moment to explain why.
	In paragraph 10, the Procedure Committee endorses the recommendation of the Leader's Group that debates on Select Committee reports could take place in the Moses Room on the understanding that additional business in that room would be arranged only with the concurrence of those concerned. I am sure that it would not be in the report if the usual channels were not hopeful that chairmen such as myself would take advantage of that offer. My letter to the Chairman of Committees, now annexed to the report, sets out objections of mine, speaking on behalf of the Select Committee, to the view that the Moses Room is a suitable place in which to debate Select Committee reports. It is clear that it is not.
	There is no need for me to repeat the objections that appear in the letter I addressed to the Chairman of Committees, but let me emphasise briefly one aspect of our objections. The Foreign Secretary himself has said:
	"The British negotiating hand in Europe is stronger when it is clear that it reflects the concerns of Parliament".
	I have every reason to believe—in fact, I know—that this view is shared by members of my committee. It is my strong contention that the concerns identified by the European Select Committee on EU legislation are properly and appropriately presented and discussed in this Chamber.
	The draft legislation scrutinised in these European committee reports has a significant impact on the citizens of this country. The majority of them address what I would call citizens' issues—for example, gender equality in access to services; fighting illegal immigration; the future of our fishing industry; our environmental responsibilities; and procedural rights in criminal proceedings, to name but a few. They need a proper airing and the Floor of your Lordships' House is where they should be aired, as transparently as possible and before the widest possible audience.
	That is one of the reasons why I have repeatedly opposed the idea of diverting debates on Select Committee reports to the Moses Room. At the same time, we as a committee, as opponents of the Moses Room option, felt it our duty and incumbent upon us to propose at least one constructive alternative. That, too, is set out in my letter. It is a modest request. It is for a guaranteed two-hour debate on one Wednesday per month for a period of approximately six months of the year. Yet even this modest suggestion seems, inexplicably, to be opposed by the usual channels as cutting into the time traditionally allotted to balloted Back-Bench debates—as if what we are discussing in our European committee reports is of little interest to Back-Benchers.
	Yes, it would cut into that time, I admit, to the extent that while there would still be two balloted Back-Bench debates on that Wednesday, they would each be of two hours rather than two-and-a-half hours and the House would therefore sit for an extra hour to accommodate all three debates. That, apparently, is a price too high to pay to ensure more certainty and transparency in the progress of European Union scrutiny through your Lordships' House.
	We are all agreed that there need to be additional arrangements for Select Committee debates, and this modest Wednesday proposal should be considered alongside other modernising proposals. We discussed this at some length in the Procedure Committee on 20 October, but the report, while reflecting my opposition to the Moses Room option, made no mention of the fact that the alternative that I proposed was also discussed. But my recommendation was proposed in good faith as a practical alternative to the Moses Room option of the Leader's Group and was therefore very relevant to the discussion then as it is relevant to the discussion today.
	I left the Procedure Committee on 20 October convinced that as I had made it plain once more that I and my committee could not accept the Moses Room option, and had not been without some support in the committee, there would be further discussion of the alternatives at a later date. However, the report as it stands in paragraph 10 appears to make it clear that the Leader's Group recommendation has been endorsed and the matter is therefore closed. The Moses Room option remains, to be used with the concurrence of those concerned.
	I feel that I have a duty to inform your Lordships that, as long as I am in the chair of the European Union Select Committee, I foresee no circumstances in which I would recommend a report for debate off the Floor of the House. Existing and maybe new proposals for alternatives therefore must be discussed. The door must not be closed today. I look to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to give an assurance that alternatives will be discussed in a future meeting of the Procedure Committee. If he can give me that assurance, I shall be happy to sit down and say no more.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the report of the Procedure Committee and thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for introducing it. It seems to take a very sensible approach. We have tried out some of the new ideas and those that have been successful are being retained; those that were not successful are now being removed.
	I particularly welcome the action on Starred Questions, which are certainly one of the most important facets of life in your Lordships' Chamber. It is absolutely essential that we get back to the tightness and robustness of Starred Questions that was apparent before the changes were made.
	However, in paragraph 7 of the report, the Procedure Committee takes the opportunity to remind the House of the following guidance on Starred Questions:
	"supplementary questions may be asked but they should be short and confined to not more than two points".
	It goes on to say:
	"The essential purpose of supplementaries is to elicit information, and they should not incorporate statements of opinion. They should not be read".
	This is not the first time that this advice has been made known to Members of the House. I fear that, unless we as individual Members take note, this advice will be offered on many more occasions. I suggest to the chairman of the Procedure Committee that he should encourage the Leaders of the party groups and the Convenor of the Cross Benches to draw to the attention of Members who do not follow this guidance that they are undermining the whole purpose of Starred Questions.
	A further recommendation in paragraph 13 relates to the interesting question of swapping Wednesday and Thursday business. I very much welcome the decision of the Procedure Committee to again look into this matter. I hope that in his response to the debate the Chairman of Committees will give an indication of when it is likely to report to the House.
	As to the question of Select Committee reports and their possible debate in the Moses Room, I do not take the view of the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Grenfell. I have attended a number of Grand Committees in the Moses Room and have found that the arrangements work very well indeed. It does not detract from effective scrutiny of government Ministers and the atmosphere is good. I believe that the same would apply if Select Committee reports were also debated in the Moses Room.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about the importance of the Select Committees, their work and their reports. I was struck by his comment about the limited number of Select Committee reports that have been debated in the past two or three Sessions. I would welcome more debates on Select Committee reports. The reason I welcome the option of using the Moses Room is that it would provide an opportunity for more debates on Select Committee reports to take place.
	Some Select Committee reports are very important and attract considerable attention. Many Members of your Lordships' House will enter the Chamber, listen to the debate and take part in discussions. Other Select Committee reports do not attract such attention. I have been present at some debates on Select Committee reports where the only Members present have been Members of the Select Committee and Front Benchers who, frankly, had no other option but to be present.
	Surely in those circumstances such reports would be better debated in the Moses Room. There would be a much better atmosphere and, ultimately, the report will appear in Hansard. Ministers will still be called to account and will have to respond to the debate in the same way as in the main Chamber. It will give your Lordships an opportunity to attend more debates in total because of the greater flexibility it will allow.
	I very much hope that the House will allow this to proceed because it will prove to be an advantage and will not detract from scrutiny. I hope that the House will accept the full recommendations of the Procedure Committee.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I strongly support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I also support the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, both in what he said and in what he wrote in his excellent letter to the chairman. It sets out very clearly the points made by both noble Lords. Unless I get the kind of assurances requested, I will join the noble Lords in voting for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton.
	I understand that my noble friend Lady Amos is not responsible for what goes on in this Chamber. She does not have control, as we are constantly being told. I understand that. It is a problem for all the leaders whose report is before us. They are responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves.
	I was going to set out all the various Select Committee reports that have not been debated, but the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, spelt out very clearly the percentages of reports that have been debated in this Chamber and the need for that link to be sustained. He made the point very well and I do not wish to repeat it.
	I have chaired a Select Committee and been a member of Select Committees for some time. If their reports are never likely to be debated in the Chamber or debated properly in your Lordships' House, Select Committee members will feel that they are spending many long hours working hard on Select Committee reports and wasting their time.
	We have heard from my party leader, and I hope that we will hear from the other two, telling us that they appreciate and understand the points that have been made so ably by the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Grenfell.
	We are told that chairmen of Select Committees should be more rigorous in what they recommend for debate in your Lordships' House. I understand and accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath that some reports could well be debated elsewhere. Equally, you have only to look at the Order Paper to see the number of reports on issues that are not minor and should be debated on the Floor of the House or, for important debates, in the Moses Room. I do not necessarily go along with the idea that the Moses Room is never suitable. I certainly think, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, that European Union matters deserve to be debated on the Floor of the House. They are not debated enough.
	If anybody has to be rigorous, it is the leaders of the parties in your Lordships' House who recommend subjects for debate on Wednesdays. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made an excellent point about the way this should be dealt with. With great respect to the party leaders in your Lordships' House—and I have a lot of respect for all of them—the plain fact is, we suspect that they do not have it in mind to do what the House generally wants to be done, and that this report will sweep matters under the carpet, if they will forgive my saying so.
	My noble friend Lady Amos says that time will be offered in the usual way—I emphasise those two words because "usual way" means that we will carry on as before. That is totally unsatisfactory to most people in your Lordships' House, other than those on the Front Benches. So I hope that we will not carry on in the usual way.
	My noble friend also said that we will make progress. We will not make a lot of progress if we just carry on in the usual way. We need change, and we need change along the lines that have been spelt out very clearly by the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Grenfell.
	We need an assurance from someone, somewhere—from all three leaders, I hope, rather than the poor Chairman of Committees, who is in an impossible position—of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, spelt out. I hope that it will not be discussed at some later date but that a report will come back to your Lordships' House within a month. There is no reason why it should not. Unless I get that kind of assurance, I shall be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, finished his speech with a request that we should have an assurance that this matter would be taken back and reconsidered de novo. As he half sat down, about three noble Lords rose and the Chairman of Committees had no opportunity to give us that assurance. If he would give us that assurance now, it would enable me—and, I suspect, many other noble Lords—to curtail or, indeed, to abandon our speeches. I will very readily sit down if the noble Lord is about to rise to his feet.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I will take up the noble Viscount's kind invitation. I had not planned to say any more until the end of the debate, but if it will assist your Lordships in further consideration of this matter, I am happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, the assurances that he seeks. This is not a closed matter; the Procedure Committee will look again at timings and debates; and, as I said at the beginning, the usual channels are already working with committee chairmen to try to work out alternative proposals. So I can absolutely give the assurance that this is not a closed matter and that the Procedure Committee will look at it again and at any suggestions, such as those of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, at our next meeting.

Lord Denham: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept the reference back of this clause of the report?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am reluctant to take the whole clause out of the report. As well as dealing with Select Committee reports, the clause deals with the possibility of some statutory instruments and Unstarred Questions being taken in the Moses Room, with agreement. I should have thought that that would be a reasonable—

Noble Lords: No.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords? Very well. I cannot go any further than the assurance of—

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, for my part I disagree. If the matter is to be considered at the next meeting, that seems a very reasonable undertaking—the best that we can have, and perfectly satisfactory. On that basis, I shall make only one point.
	There is one point on which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, with whom I otherwise totally agree. The way in which Select Committee reports are treated is scandalous, not merely from the point of view of the Select Committee members, but also because those reports are highly regarded throughout the rest of the European Community. It seems ridiculous that this House, from which they emanate, does not consider them properly.
	I venture to disagree with the noble Lord's proposal that the time found to debate these reports should come out of the time allotted to Back-Bench debates, which is already short. Two and a half hours often proves very short for many of the debates, with speeches ridiculously reduced. These reports should be debated in government time, and in good government time, in both senses of the word—that is, promptly and in prime time.
	Such reports are, for the most part, the only chance this House has to make any impact on major legislation emanating from Europe. They are therefore the equivalent of Bills, and of Bills for which the Government are responsible. They should therefore be given government time now used for legislation. A certain day once a month should be allocated for that purpose.
	It is to be noted that domestic legislation comes before this House no fewer than four separate times in the course of its passage. European legislation can come before this House only once; namely, when the report is debated. It is, I suggest, entirely wrong to say that a lot of this very important legislation coming from Europe should not be debated in government time because that time is needed for the passage of domestic legislation. That is not even true: first, it would not matter if there was slightly less domestic legislation. Both Houses of Parliament, as well as the world in general, would be highly delighted if there were somewhat less legislation. Secondly, it is not true that the legislation needs all the time that is given to it. If Bills came forward properly prepared, discussed and scrutinised in advance, they would take vastly less time.
	It is also unrealistic, nowadays, to think that UK legislation is so important that it should always take priority over European legislation. The opposite is very largely true. One of the main reasons our people are so cut off from Parliament and government is that they feel Parliament and government do not exercise any control over what emerges from Europe, some of which strikes them, and indeed me, as pretty good rubbish. Time spent on properly scrutinising that would be not only well spent but also popularly spent.

Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I shall not rehearse the arguments which have been put forward so elegantly by my noble friend Lord Grenfell and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Although we have heard assurances from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, if one reads the report, it is hard to avoid a particular conclusion. That conclusion arises from the combination of the exhortation that committee chairmen should exercise rigour and, by implication, more rigour than they do at present, and the statement that some debates should be held in the Moses Room. The only implication of those statements must be that less time is to be made available in this Chamber. That is not satisfactory.
	We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about the trivial amount of time that is taken up by the debate of Select Committee reports in this House. Given the amount of time and effort that goes into them on the part of Members of this House and the impact which some of them have outside, it is outrageous that there should be any implication that less time should in future be made available for them in this Chamber.
	Although some prime time has been made available, it has often been at the last minute, when some item of government business has been withdrawn. I have had to try to gather people together at as little as 10 days' notice for a debate in which many noble Lords would have wished to participate, but which in the end, although it was in prime time, they were unable to attend because they did not have notice of it. I and members of my committee, which unfortunately is meeting at this moment thereby preventing many of them being here, would wish for stronger assurances than we have received today if we are not to support the amendment.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, noble Lords will not be surprised that I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I sat in that slot for a number of years and had to fight the corner for time to debate reports from the European Union Select Committee. In fairness to the usual channels, more time is made available now than used to be in the early days of my tenancy of that job, but it is still inadequate.
	We must avoid at all costs giving the impression that somehow your Lordships' House is not interested in the work of the Select Committees. A very large number of your Lordships take part in Select Committees and work extremely hard. We should do everything we can to make sure that the findings of those committees are made as widely available as possible.
	During the Summer Recess, I would flick through the television channels and occasionally come to channel 45 or whatever it was. I was interested to find bits of Select Committee reports being debated in your Lordships' House. I am sure that anybody who has an interest in Parliament and who watches the Parliament channel will have found those broadcasts extremely interesting and very valuable. They will enhance the perception of your Lordships' House.
	I shall not go into the argument about whether the Moses Room is totally unsuitable. I do not think that it is totally unsuitable. On occasions, it is suitable. I also take the point that chairmen of Select Committees should not be castigated for pushing reports for debate any more than is necessary. On many occasions, reports are submitted to the House for information and not for debate. Where they are submitted for debate, I have to tell the usual channels that it is after proper consideration of their importance.
	I suggest as a practical step forward that if we are going to have debates on reports in the Moses Room, for Heaven's sake, let us make sure that they are televised. I cannot believe that the cost of doing that is so extraordinarily high that we could not let the world in on those discussions. Debates in the Chamber are televised and that is a great help to people who are interested in Parliament and in the work of our Select Committees. Let us at least make sure, if matters are being debated in the Moses Room, that there is proper television coverage of those debates. I think that television cameras have now been installed in Committee Room 4B. Perhaps debates might take place there, where it would be possible to record and televise them.
	Essentially, I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. It is up to Members of your Lordships' House to take our Select Committee work seriously. They should not leave the debates only to the members of Select Committees, but should address themselves to the subjects which are put before them by the Select Committees and join that debate. That weakness in our attitude is our fault and we really should correct it.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have been honoured to be a member of both the Select Committee on Europe and its sub-committee on defence and foreign affairs. Their members are Back Benchers and include, as usual in this House, a number of men and women who bring real expertise to the issues on which they report and hold under scrutiny. The committees can call on—and they do—a formidable range of witnesses, including Ministers, officials and distinguished foreign and academic experts, including representatives of the European Commission.
	Europe is at present an issue of wide and deep concern to the country, both because of the impending referendum and in the context of this country's relations with Europe and the United States. The Government have promised that before the referendum, the Constitutional Treaty, which Ministers have signed, will be scrutinised line by line and there will be the fullest possible discussion of every clause of that treaty, not least with a view of informing the public in general. Our reports are all directly relevant to that process and to the debate going on in the country. They cover subjects from extradition policies to packaging waste.
	When I read the report, I could not believe that the Procedure Committee could contemplate for one moment relegating the discussion of those reports at this time to the Moses Room where, it actually said, it will not even consider the provision of television. If ever there were a time in the recent life of this House when we needed to reach the widest possible public with an informed view of European issues, it is now, in the period leading up to the referendum.
	Does the Procedure Committee see members of the public, or indeed noble Lords other than committee members, rushing to the Moses Room? How will the public know the view of those noble Lords, not members of the committee, on the report, for that is an important part of our function? We cannot take the place of the whole House; and nor can the scrutiny of the whole House—so that the scrutiny reserve may be lifted—be exercised elsewhere than in the Chamber.
	I find it nothing short of amazing that the Procedure Committee should not recognise that public debate on Europe can only raise our profile, which must surely be one of its proper concerns. I hope that it will forgive me for saying that it is not only denying the public and the House generally access to timely and focused knowledge on a major national issue, it is derogating from the House's duty of scrutiny (not just of legislation), and of informing the public. I hope very much that it will recognise that the committee's reports are a vital part of the business of this House, not a troublesome minor distraction.
	A taxi driver said to me quite recently, "Of course both Houses are talking shops, but the Lords talks sense". I hope we shall show that we do.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I declare an interest as a paid-up member of the usual channels. When I look at the membership of the Procedure Committee listed in its report, I see that it is a list of the great and the good in this House. Not only are there the current Leaders, Deputy Leaders and Chief Whips of all three parties, but there is also the Convenor. There is also a range of other people with long experience who have put their names to the recommendations in this report.
	I am not privy to what goes on in the Procedure Committee—and I say that absolutely truthfully. I have not discussed this matter, nor has anyone drawn it to my attention, but I assume that there are arguments and debates in that committee. The very issue that we are discussing, which arises from the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, must have been a matter of debate there. We have before us a recommendation of the Procedure Committee of this House. Members of that committee are not novices; they have been here a long time, and they are recommending to us that an option be opened up.
	For the life of me I cannot quite see why we are getting so exercised, if we are told that the Chairman of Committees is so vehemently opposed to going in a certain direction—and Members have the right to say no. I assume that every time that managers of business in this place come to a point where a report needs to be debated, the chairman will say, "I want the debate to be held on the Floor of the House".
	I have had only 20 years in this place, which is not as long as many others—and I do not say that idly. I have sat here and listened to debates on Select Committee reports. Do we really believe that the interests of this House, let alone Parliament or the country, are served by televising a debate when only seven, eight or 12 noble Lords are sitting here, sending the message to the world outside that that is the measure of noble Lords' interest in the subject? I do not see it, but if that is what the Chairman of Committees wants, perhaps he has a magic solution for the future which will transform that situation.
	Reference has been made to the Wednesday debates. The House has more than once made a great hoo-ha about the importance of those debates, and how people all over the world are waiting to hear the views of Members of the House of Lords. And yet, in my experience—and because of my position, I had to sit here—very often after the first three or four speeches, the attendance dwindles. Sometimes, at the winding-up, not even those who have spoken in the debate are present. So let us not kid ourselves, whoever else we are trying to kid, about the romance and importance of those debates. Noble Lords have to be true to themselves. There is not a lot of interest in most of the business, other than the real political issues, in this House—let alone outside.
	I happen to serve on a Select Committee which deals with the merits of statutory instruments. Our function is to recommend in a report that there should be procedures whereby a committee will recommend matters worthy of consideration on the Floor of the House. I can tell you now that there are 10 members on the committee, but I would be delighted if we got to double figures. We will not get many more than that who are interested in the subject. That could very well be a subject for the Moses Room.
	I believe in the importance of committees and their value to the House, but noble Lords are deluding themselves if they believe that even a quarter or tenth of the 700 Members of this House are seriously interested in listening to the debates on those matters. They are not. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and to others who support his point of view, I believe that the proposal of the Procedure Committee is a sensible one. I am heartened by it, because it is put forward by colleagues whom I have known for 20 years, who serve in senior positions on all Benches of the House. I believe that the Procedure Committee's report should be accepted in its entirety.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham. He will recall an occasion when he and I both reached an extremely sensible decision through the usual channels and a man no doubt wiser than us overruled us, and both of us had to stay up all night.
	This is intended to be a short debate and I do not intend unduly to prolong it, but I want to comment on two aspects of the Procedure Committee's report before your Lordships' House today. Read in conjunction with the Leader's Group's Review of Working Practices, these reports have an Olympian smoothness that reminds one of the legendary advertisements in the New Yorker for the Rolls-Royce motor car that averred that the loudest aspect of the car was the ticking of the electric clock. The overall conclusion from the reports is that, generally speaking, in the words of Doctor Pangloss, all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But even a Rolls-Royce can sustain a mechanical defect.
	The blueprint is always worth testing against reality. In some regards, one could defer a reference to the Civil Partnership Bill until we discuss it again next week. However, I do not seek to discuss the merits or demerits of that Bill—nor will the possible heat of next Wednesday's debate be the best time at which to engage in academic procedural observations. But in two regards the Bill illuminates with an actual case the placid mill pool of our life here which the reports seem to contemplate.
	The first is that the Bill was regarded by the Government as being sufficiently uncontroversial to merit Grand Committee treatment. Perhaps there were good reasons for the Bill having, like the Gender Recognition Bill, been omitted from any direct reference in the Queen's Speech, other than in the time-honoured phrase,
	"Other measures will be laid before you".
	But my own antennae became sensitised when on the morrow of the State Opening, the Gender Recognition Bill, unheralded the day before, received its First Reading.
	The Government's business managers in both Houses have the benefit of the advice of seven special advisers in order to do their work. Perhaps it was those advisers who opined, either unanimously or by a majority, that the Bill was sufficiently uncontroversial to go into Grand Committee. Go into Grand Committee it did—and subsequent events have cast doubt on that verdict of uncontroversiality.
	For the majority of your Lordships' House, the story then moved on to the object of second regard—the issue of Thursday morning sittings, on which the reports that we have before us were broadly content. But those of your Lordships who were in the Chamber on 24 June, on the day of Report on the Civil Partnership Bill, will recall the debate on my noble friend Lady O'Cathain's amendment, which blew out of the water any suggestion that the Bill was anything other than highly controversial. It was possible that the Government's business managers were so lulled into a spirit of uncontroversiality that they did not appreciate how untimely the Report stage was likely to be on a Thursday morning, with party meetings going on. But the mien of the Government Front Bench during the remaining proceedings after the amendment had been carried was an index of the disaster of the way in which the Bill had been managed.
	What does all this amount to? Like the Procedure Committee, I broadly agree with the Leader's Group's conclusions. But—and it is a large but—there needs to be a massive improvement in the Government's case-by-case handling and steering if the show is to be kept on the road.
	I indicated at the start of this speech that I had a second point, which relates to the amendment to the Motion. I agree profoundly that the European Union Committee is one of the glories of your Lordships' House. As my noble friend Lady Park said, at this moment in our history we should reinforce our interest in European Union developments, not downgrade them. But I am equally aware that the underlying Back-Bench principle in what in another place would be called "supply days" is a further glory of your Lordships' House. We maintain a high standard of debate on Wednesdays, on specific or generic topics, and whatever we do to preserve either of these notable features of our affairs should not be at the expense of the other.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I am a chairman of one of your Lordships' committees, though happily for only a few days more, so this is nearly my farewell appearance. Since we are having a mish-mash debate, which I do not like, I should say that I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Hunt said about other bits of the report. Before getting down to what might be called the "Lord Norton problem", I ought to say a word about the scrutiny of the Finance Bill, which is mentioned in the Procedure Committee report.
	I may be ultra-sensitive, but I do not like the wording of the Procedure Committee report. Indeed, I find it rather insulting. That report reminds us of the need to conduct our activities with full regard to the sensitivities of the other place. I say in terms that, under my chairmanship, the committee has always stayed well within its remit, has never exceeded it and would not dream of upsetting anybody in the other place. We know what sensitive creatures they are. I hope that words of that sort will not appear in reports in future, when someone else is chairman.
	I would like to go further. There was a problem with the finance sub-committee that was not attributable to your Lordships. It was due entirely to the lack of Treasury co-operation with the sub-committee. Treasury officials refused to come to oral sessions, as requested by the committee, and did not answer questions on issues that were well within our remit. They took it on themselves to decide what was within our remit. I regard all of that as showing disrespect to your Lordships' House. Happily, I shall not have to deal with that again, but it will be a burden on my successor.
	My position throughout has been to be in favour of the proposal in the Procedure Committee report, assuming that it means what I think it means. I shall tell the House what I think that it means. I hope that I shall turn out to be right. I think, first, that it means that we agree entirely with the promises made last time by Lord Williams of Mostyn to provide proper space or time for our debates. It is not clear whether, within this special relativity theory, we are talking about space, time or some combination of the two. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is right: Lord Williams of Mostyn promised us that something would happen on Wednesdays. My interpretation is that that will now happen.
	Secondly, I took the Procedure Committee report to mean that we would use the Moses Room—I am taken with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that we should use a room upstairs—as an additional resource available to us, not a substitution. I shall give your Lordships two examples. On Friday, in your Lordships' House, we shall debate my Select Committee's report on ageing, pensions and all that sort of thing. The report has attracted major international attention and is regarded as the greatest report available on the subject.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I have been annoyed all year that we have not debated the subject, but it turns out that this Friday could not be a better day for debating it, as the subject has risen to the top of the political agenda. Nothing could suit us more than that it should be debated now. It is a good example of a report that should be debated in your Lordships' House. I am happy to say that, to my amazement, 18 Members have said that they will speak. That is marvellous.
	At the same time, the committee has today published a report on the economy, the Monetary Policy Committee and the Treasury. It is extremely disrespectful to both bodies, but I doubt that it will attract any attention. None the less, it is an example of a report that should be debated earlier rather than later. If I were still chairman—in a few days' time, I will not be—I would simply say to the usual channels that I was happy to debate it in the Moses Room, as long as I can debate it quickly. That seems to meet the criteria exactly—some here, some there.
	I conclude with one remark. When I discussed the matter with colleagues from all parts of the House, they said, "Typically, Maurice, you are being your usual totally na-ve self. There is a hidden agenda, which is gradually to pressurise chairmen into accepting the Moses Room and not the Chamber". Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that, if I were still a chairman, there is no way in which I would be pressurised. However, there may be some weaklings among us who could be.
	All that we require is a statement in terms that there is no hidden agenda and no possibility that debate in your Lordships' House will be diminished and that what we are discussing is an addition. I thought that I had got such a statement from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, but he or my noble friend Lady Amos may want to repeat it. If we are given that statement in terms, there will be no reason why the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, should divide the House. However, we need a simple statement that we are getting more, not less.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to point 10 in the report. I warmly support the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Grenfell. I am a member of the EU Select Committee.
	There is a paradox in the House's handling of EU matters. Our procedures at committee level work well, and the reports that emerge are the envy of other national parliaments in the European Union. They are often praised and taken seriously by the Commission and our own Government. Yet, our procedures for debating such reports in the House remain stuck in a kind of time warp. Many are held in a holding pattern that can last for months. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, how many months.
	Now, we are offered the solution of debates in the Moses Room. Surely, that is no solution at all. It is an invitation to continue a debate that has already taken place in the Select Committee and its sub-committees among pretty well the same participants. If we are being honest with ourselves, we should recognise that the chances of many others outside that charmed circle leaving the business of the House and going to the Moses Room are slight. We would thus send a clear signal that the House regards the debating of EU business as a minority interest, to be left to those already deeply involved in it. Is that not precisely the sort of approach that is at the root of the ignorance about and distrust of the European Union in this country?
	How can such an approach be reconciled with the enhanced role for national parliaments contained in the constitutional treaty, the ratification of which we will debate in a few weeks' time? Will the House leave to a small minority decisions on whether to use our vote on subsidiarity? I imagine not; indeed, I wonder whether it would even be proper to do so. In that case, the House will have to organise itself differently on EU business. The use of the vote on subsidiarity is strictly time-limited.
	I do not feel that dividing the House is the best way to proceed. If the House is divided, I will vote in the Lobby with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. However, I would rather hear from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees a copper-bottomed assurance—stronger than the one that he has given hitherto—that a further fundamental look at the issues raised will be taken, with no solution excluded at the outset.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I have only two points to make. First, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said about questions being concise and relevant. I wish to add to that that the answers should be too. They tend to take up an awful lot of time unnecessarily. It is a recognised defensive measure on the part of a Minister who does not want to be pressed too hard.
	My second point is that it depresses me extremely that everybody, except, I think, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has taken the pressure on time in the Chamber as a given, about which we can do nothing. I remind your Lordships that, in the first full year of this Government, the time spent in this Chamber on government-programmed Bills was 284 hours and six minutes. In 2002–03, the last full year for which we have the record, it was 396 hours and 55 minutes. The number of Bills in the first instance was 27; in the second, it was 36.
	Over the years, it is not the number of Bills that is increasing; it is the length. It is a historical process. Somebody recently had time to measure the shelves of legislation kept in the House of Commons with a measuring tape. They found that all the Bills from 1550 to 1950 were a little shorter on shelf space than those from 1950 to the present day. The process has continued even under the present Government. Something must be done about it.
	There is a legislative committee of the Cabinet—it used to be called "Leg."; I do not know what it is called now—which decides how many slots there should be for main programme legislation in the Queen's Speech and subsequently. That gate should be narrower, not wider, and it should be coupled with a definition of the number of clauses—or pages—any piece of legislation may have. The custom of a department getting one Bill and then adding another draft Bill to it as part two, and finally finishing up by dishing us up something so thick that it has to be in two volumes or it falls apart has to stop. If that sort of thing stops, the hours will get shorter and we can discuss Select Committee reports when they should be discussed.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I welcome the assurance given by the Chairman of Committees that the Procedure Committee will look again at the last sentence of the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I have lost count of the number of times that the EU has been criticised regarding national Parliaments not having a chance properly to scrutinise what it is doing. However, an issue arises that is relevant to Wednesday afternoons. I take issue with the point made by my noble friend Lord Graham about debates on Select Committee reports being participated in by very few noble Lords. That is notoriously true of the political debates held on Wednesday afternoons. I see no reason at all why the occasional Wednesday afternoon could not be restructured.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I, too, do not think that the European Union Select Committee's work is debated to the best advantage at the moment. It needs to be repackaged in some way. The European Union constitution is very relevant to that and I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in that regard. On Wednesday afternoons we need to discuss a number of reports that have some synergy to ensure that the scrutiny covers a broader field. That would result in more noble Lords attending the debates, which would make sense not only to the noble Lords on the relevant sub-committees but also to other noble Lords within the House as a whole who need to get to grips with European issues. It would be very useful for the European Union Select Committee, in conjunction with the Chairman of Committees, to give that matter some consideration.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate due to a delay that arose while travelling here. If one had had nothing to do with the European Union Committee and knew nothing about it, having listened to this debate one could be forgiven for believing that the relevant noble Lords wanted most of the matters that they had discussed to be debated in the Chamber, and that the noble Lords who serve on that committee and its sub-committees were fighting for those committees.
	I have served on those committees and I am struck by something that I consider far more serious; namely, that the subjects on which those committees report constitute a very small number of the subjects that we would like to report on. Therefore, the subjects that are reported on are far more significant than is realised by those who are unaware of what those committees do. They are very important; in fact, they are the most important subjects. Normally a sub-committee report refers to four, five or more very important subjects. Noble Lords should realise that these are very important subjects and that we should not seek—as we may appear to be doing—to have them discussed in a back room.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate until I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I disagree with what he said. I am now a member of the Procedure Committee. I have in the past been a member of the EU Committee and of Sub-Committee E which deals with law and institutions.
	Some of the reports of the European Union Committee and of Sub-Committee E are undoubtedly of major importance and deserve to be debated on the Floor of the House. I refer in particular to our report on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Others are not in the same category. For instance, we produced a report on European patent law. That seems to me something that is not suitable for debate on the Floor of the House. If it is to be debated at all, it ought to be debated in the Moses Room or in some suitable alternative venue.
	It seems to me that the proposal in response to paragraph 10 of this report seeks to give an opportunity for more reports to be debated; for those which are not suitable for debate on the Floor of the House to be debated in the Moses Room; and for the important debates which should and must be debated on the Floor of the House to reach the Floor of the House more quickly. For that reason I hope that with the undertakings which have been given on this matter from the Front Bench we will be able to approve the report as it stands.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, in listening to this debate I am reminded a little of the American tourist who asked a countryman in Northern Ireland how he would get to Belfast and what his advice would be. The gentleman replied, "Sir, if I were you, I would not start from here". That was good advice, but not terribly helpful.
	If we take the data that have been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, it is quite clear—I do not think that anyone would disagree—that the percentage of time that is allocated to discussing Select Committee reports is inadequate. It is very small. It is absolutely clearly too small. However, we do not start from a blank sheet of paper. If we are to allocate more time to those debates, we either have to sit longer or we have to shove other things out of the way, or, perhaps, we have to open up another possibility. There does not seem to be a great appetite for sitting through the night to debate these matters. I doubt very much that there is any evidence of a volunteering either by the Government, Back-Benchers or anyone else to restrict their time.
	What is proposed by the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, is that we open up another possibility or route by which debates on a range of instruments can take place. It is not just a question of Select Committee reports; other matters are involved. We need to see whether, by agreement, another channel and another opportunity for debate can be opened up. I have considerable sympathy with the comments of my noble friend Lord Tordoff who indicated that the cost of broadcasting debates might not be so prohibitive or that they might take place in locations other than the Moses Room where they could be broadcast and be made available much more widely. I refer also to the radio and the Internet.
	However, we do not start from a position where we can simply implement all that we want in the way that we want because we already have commitments. We have an opportunity to open up another channel by agreement not in order to shunt important Select Committee reports into a siding but rather to give them more exposure. We also have an opportunity to conduct other kinds of business off the Floor of the House. That merits some consideration and we could review the experience to see whether it is satisfactory.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the Procedure Committee's report in general. Attention today has been centred on the question of the time allocated to debates on Select Committee reports, but there are a number of other important issues in the Procedure Committee report. As this is, at the request of various people, a mish-mash debate, I wish to say a few brief words about that.
	It is important to bear in mind that we are not starting from a blank sheet. We put into effect, by a decision of this House in July 2002, a package of measures. We are looking to see whether we can confirm those. That is what we are doing; we are not starting from scratch.
	My own impression is quite clear; namely, that the working practices now being reviewed have generally bedded down very well and that they command, for the most part, the support of the House. We should rate as improvements the bigger role, without setting a rigid target, that is being taken by pre-legislative scrutiny, which in my view improves the quality of legislation, and, very importantly, gives advance notice of the issues which will come up when a Bill comes before the House. For Cross-Benchers that is an extremely useful system; it helps us a lot, and is much to be welcomed. A similar pragmatic approach applies to the carry-over of desirable Bills and to the use of Grand Committees for some Bills. I think there is a wide measure of agreement that we should revert to our former practice of four Starred Questions each day and that we should keep the Thursday arrangements for the present.
	Clearly the main issue this afternoon is the use of time for debates and, in particular, for debates on Select Committee reports. That is the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and, I emphasise, of the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, which is attached to the Procedure Committee's report. We have a common interest in ensuring that significant reports from Select Committees are debated in a satisfactory way and in satisfactory circumstances. I think that I can take a pretty balanced view. I am a very new Convenor but a very long-time contributor to reports of the Select Committee on the European Union and debates on them.
	On the vexed question of the Moses Room, I stress—it has been partly pushed aside by some speakers—that the proposal is not that it be the sole or almost principal method of dealing with the reports. It is not a case of the Moses Room or nothing. To coin a phrase, the Moses Room is not written on tablets of stone. On the contrary, the report states specifically that the additional business in the Moses Room would be arranged only with the concurrence of those concerned. That is an essential condition. It should not be devalued, in particular if it is linked—I think that it will be—with a genuine intention to fix debates elsewhere if they are not to take place in the Moses Room. There is plenty of scope. We have had quite a lot of debates—eight, I think—on the Floor of the House in the current Session on Select Committee reports on Monday to Thursday and not on Friday. There is more to be done, as we all know, but I am sure that it can be done.
	I took the assurance given by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees very seriously. He responded to the point, saying that the question of the use of the Moses Room, subject to certain conditions, for Select Committee reports was being taken back and would be looked at thoroughly and that, at the same time, the other possibilities would be reviewed. That was a direct response, and a very good one, to the words in the amendment, which I have just reread.
	There is one point which so far has not been made much. It is pretty difficult to make a new point after an hour and 25 minutes; none the less, I wish to make it. The real problem is not only the choice between Unstarred Questions, Friday debates or some other use of prime time in the rest of the week, but the rather haphazard planning and, in at least the case of the Select Committee on the European Union, the loss of impact or even interest when the delays are too long. The EU Committee reports are on future legislation, for the most part, as some have said. That legislation will be implemented in the UK. They are not academic exercises.
	I would like to see regular monitoring by the usual channels together with each Select Committee chairman of the backlog of reports, if there is one, and proposals for dates and the appropriate forum for debate—the Chamber on Monday to Thursday or on Friday, if that is decided, or, by agreement, Unstarred Questions, for example. That would go a long way to defuse the question that seems to have clocked up quite a few amps; perhaps it is ohms, but I forget. I do not believe it impossible to get right up to date with the outstanding Select Committee debates and minimise the problem for the future. I emphasise the value that I attach to the assurance by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we have had a very thorough debate; I also intend to be brief. First, let me say a word about the review of working practices and its considerable success. It is interesting that, in the debate, we have concentrated almost entirely on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. However, it sounds as though most of the House broadly accepts the other proposals for working practices, which is something of a tribute to Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was our Leader, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and her colleagues for the smooth transition from the original proposals to the current report. I want to make it very clear that I believe that the modernisation of working practices has been an impressive example of how to do such things.
	Before turning to the amendment, I want to refer to pre-legislative scrutiny, in which I have always strongly believed. I have always thought it right and proper that most major Bills should be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny if they are to be the kind of legislation that lasts, is respected and is highly obeyed by society. In that context, I strongly want to underline what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The truth of the matter is that we have too much legislation. Members of this House will know very well—Members of another place will know even better—how frequently we simply repeat, year after year, much the same kind of legislation because the previous Act is overtaken by a few changes or by a new Minister. Once again, we have yet another criminal justice Bill, education Bill or health Bill. If those were more carefully considered by the legislative committee of the Cabinet and the various government departments—I make no distinction between the parties that happen to be in power—we would have a much more effective body of law than we have, and it would be much better debated. I shall not proceed with that further, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was absolutely right. The matter should be given more attention than it is.
	I shall turn briefly to what the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Grenfell, had to say. The subjects covered by the European Union Committee and the Science and Technology Committee continually grow in importance. In that sense, the noble Lords were absolutely right to say that they had a substantial responsibility in those areas. The Science and Technology Committee is recognised widely throughout the legislatures of the world as one of the major contributors to sensible and thoughtful debate about technological advance. We are all aware that it is in that area that we have the least democratic control and the least wide understanding. I accept fully the case made for greater attention to be paid to that committee's reports.
	It is fair to say that the European Union Select Committee does crucial work, recognised widely outside the House. However, let me take an example from inside the House. Since I have been a Member of this House, we have spent day after day and week after week discussing asylum policy, in great detail virtually every year. However, it is likely that much of the responsibility for asylum and immigration policy will pass to the European Union. In that respect, debates on the Select Committee reports in the area are at least as important as debates on primary legislation in this House—probably more so. Therefore, they deserve to be considered in much greater detail than at present.
	How do we meet that legitimate demand? I would not have agreed to the unanimous decisions on working procedures made by the Leader's Group and approved by the Procedure Committee had it not been made absolutely plain to me that the use of the Moses Room would be additional. I underline what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Goodhart. Our understanding always was that it would be over and above the procedures on the Floor of the House, and we would not have agreed to it otherwise. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees made that clear as well.
	As my noble friend Lord Goodhart said, there are certain very specialised reports that could well be debated in the Moses Room or—perhaps even better, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said—Committee Room 4, where they would be covered by television. However, I accept the serious problem that we do not know—no one has mentioned it so far—whether the scrutiny reserve that holds up the procedures of government approval of European legislation would be raised in a debate in the Moses Room. That is a crucial issue, because it is the one great power that Parliament has over members of the Council of Ministers in terms of European legislation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Norton, might want to respond to my final point. I believe that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees was strongly trying to give a fair assurance to the House that the range of possibilities covering the use of Committee Room 4 in certain circumstances, some part of the debate on Wednesdays and some extra time to be found in the Chamber itself, might meet the legitimate grievances of our colleagues who are so significant in the world of those Select Committees. I support that.
	In that context, perhaps I may say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that 2.4 per cent is a pretty thin ration of time for discussing such a substantial part of the work of this House. I hope, therefore, that the Procedure Committee, together with the usual channels—to whom I pay full tribute as the great lubricants of the engine of this House—can find a solution that is satisfactory to all who have taken part in this debate.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this debate is the latest culmination of a process that has been continuing for several years and in which the Procedure Committee and the House as a whole have rightly been actively involved. As the Leader of the House explained, it follows the initiative of Lord Williams of Mostyn, who felt that there were ways in which the procedures of this House could be modified in order to make life easier for all Members of the House without weakening the vital role that we perform in scrutinising government legislation.
	In 2002, it was decided that there should be a two-year experiment. Some of the ideas floated by the Williams group, such as restricting amendments at Third Reading, were rejected—rightly, in my view. My main interest throughout this process and today has been to uphold the unfettered right of every Member of this House to table amendments to legislation and to have those amendments debated. This is an important privilege and we should defend it for as long as we can, because it is a precious right. It is something that has enabled this House to evolve during the 20th Century to become the finest revising Chamber in the world. There is nothing in the package before us that threatens that right or any other freedom of the House.
	Some of the ideas that flowed from the Williams report naturally represented a compromise, a balance between opposing ideas, which is also in the best traditions of this House. One balance has been the rising time of 10 p.m. I am one of those who used to oppose the fixed rising time. Indeed, until 1998, nearly all the business conducted by the House was conducted on the Floor of the Chamber. But that meant that sometimes we and the staff did not go home until after midnight—sometimes 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. Many noble Lords will remember when the House sat through the night.

A noble Lord: Often!

Lord Strathclyde: Not that often, my Lords, but it did happen. The House has recognised the wish of many Peers to close business at 10 p.m., and that has had advantages for us all. In return for the 10 p.m. cut-off, we agreed to support more consideration of business in the Moses Room in Grand Committee. I have also never made it a secret that I prefer that more legislation be taken on the Floor of the House. But the Moses Room experiment has broadly worked, even if some Peers have told me that the record 18 Bills that we have agreed to send to Grand Committee this Session were far too many.
	I cannot believe that if that is workable for our vital work regarding primary legislation, it is not also workable for other business. Indeed, it has already been in use for some aspects of secondary business relating to Northern Ireland. The experiment has shown that, with good will and flexibility on all sides, these arrangements can be made to work.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, told the House about the group that she set up earlier this year to review the experiment. Perhaps I may pay tribute to her chairmanship, which she carried out with great skill and professionalism. She obtained nearly everything that she wanted, and without any fuss whatever. She deserves the congratulations of the House on that. Under her skilful chairmanship we reached a unanimous conclusion. That was broadly endorsed by the Procedure Committee and I see no reason to advocate change today. We agreed that the Williams experiment had gone too far in some areas, such as the increased number of Questions, but, in the main, the experiment has worked and we have reached the right balance.
	Therefore, I was one of those who was disappointed that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth had tabled an amendment to the Motion, although I must say that it has also provided an opportunity to discuss not only this issue but many others away from the rarefied atmosphere of the Procedure Committee.
	The purpose of the contentious paragraph was to increase opportunity for debate, to bring debates forward in time and sometimes to provide for the convenience of the chairmen. But I dare say that the Government will take that as a lesson that no good deed goes unpunished. Like all other noble Lords, I suspect, I recognise the great importance of the work of the committees of the House. They are widely respected. However, the Government have a duty to ensure that important reports are debated. My impression is that they largely succeed in that, although I fully support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, that there should be better monitoring so that we might see more transparently when the reports are published, when the Government respond and when the reports are finally debated.
	If that does not happen, then of course the Procedure Committee should address the matter and we should look at it again. But I do not believe that there is a compelling case for remitting that individual element of the package now. I would certainly oppose any idea of reducing the time that is made available on Wednesdays, until the end of June, for Back-Bench debates. In my view, there is already too much encroachment on that valuable time and it should be protected. Equally, I cannot see any dogmatic objection to debating some reports in the Moses Room. It would be odd to say that the Moses Room was acceptable for primary legislation but never for a debate on a Select Committee report.
	Surely we should keep a sense of proportion about this. We should preserve our normal flexibility and freedoms and not hedge our procedures with too many of the hard-and-fast rules that have so damaged another place—where the usual channels virtually do not function at all and all time is controlled by the Government.
	As has already been said, the only way to provide more time on the Floor is to eat into someone else's time. We could sit earlier in the day, but I do not think that that would be very popular. Another way to provide more time would be to have much less legislation, which I think we would all welcome. I hope that the Government will take that message away from this debate.
	I submit that we should accept the Procedure Committee report. We should trust in the undertakings given by the Leader of the House that the Government will be fully mindful of the need to find time for the debates to which I referred. For our part, we will do our best to facilitate that through the usual channels. I hope that, in the light of that, my noble friend will not press his amendment and that the House will agree to the Procedure Committee report.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I had not intended to speak again, but I feel that I must respond to the point made by my noble friend Lord Peston, who asked me to be absolutely clear that the Leader's Group had no hidden agenda and that no pressure would be put on committee chairmen to have debates in the Moses Room.
	The Leader's Group was seeking to be helpful. I note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, regarding what that might mean in terms of how we handle these issues in future. Our intention was to give committee chairmen and others options for additional time for discussion of business in the House. I have to say that it did not strike me, when that recommendation was agreed by the Leader's Group, that it would be read in such a negative manner. The wording was in no way intended to give that impression, and of course I am happy to give the House the assurance that it was intended to give the House additional opportunities to discuss issues.
	I am also happy to endorse the assurances given by the Chairman of Committees with respect to the Procedure Committee continuing to address such matters.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I may start by dealing with one or two points which have been made that did not relate to paragraph 10 of the report. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, spoke in support of reverting to four Questions a day over half an hour. He asked me to encourage the party leaders to persuade their troops to follow the guidance on Starred Questions contained in the Companion. They were all here to hear that, as were many other Members of the House. I hope that noble Lords abide by the guidance in the Companion—that is, short questions and short answers, which will allow time for more questions from around the House at each slot. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, also referred to that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, also referred to the paragraph concerning the swapping of business on Wednesdays and Thursdays. As the report states, the Procedure Committee will consider that matter again at its next meeting. I do not have a date for that meeting but I anticipate that the Procedure Committee may well need to meet before the end of the year.
	The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the scrutiny of the Finance Bill. I can only note what the noble Lord said, but I remind him that the part from which he quoted was from the Leader's Group report rather than from the Procedure Committee report. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the item on pre-legislative scrutiny, with which I think we probably all agree.
	With regard to debating Select Committee reports and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, there is not a great deal more that I can say, but I can give one answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. It is up to the House to say whether a debate in the Moses Room would lift the scrutiny reserve. It can do so. I am told that at present very few outstanding reports are waiting to be debated.
	Of course, we all recognise the very important work carried out by Select Committees. I myself had the privilege of chairing the European Union Select Committee. Everyone I met around Europe and elsewhere said how very important the reports are, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. I simply repeat what I said at the beginning: this is only an option. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has given an assurance that there is no hidden agenda to this matter.
	It is also an option which can be turned down by the relevant committee chairmen. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Norton—we shall know in a moment what he is intending to do about his amendment—and from the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Oxburgh, none of whom said that they would have any of their reports debated in the Moses Room. But the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who, I am sorry to say, is retiring as a chairman (he is not so sorry, I know) was prepared to give it a chance—even more so, I hope, having heard the assurances.
	I can only repeat the assurance that I gave earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell—that is, the Procedure Committee does not regard this as a closed matter and we shall look again at any suggestions, such as having an additional debate on Wednesdays. However, having listened to some of the speeches this afternoon, that does not appear to find universal favour around the House. In the context of Wednesdays and Thursdays, I also remind the House that the Procedure Committee can only advise the House on what it thinks it is best to do; ultimately, it is for the House to agree or not agree with the Procedure Committee.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and before I reply, can he tell the House why he does not simply accept the amendment and come back within the month, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, with a fresh report which addresses the question raised by Members, which is not covered in the report, about how additional time will be provided?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot allocate time in this House; nor can the Procedure Committee do so. That is a matter for the usual channels. Therefore, I cannot give any assurances about time. The noble Lord asked why I cannot just accept the amendment. I said at the beginning that I think it would be a pity to lose all the things in the report, such as the possibility of taking Unstarred Questions and statutory instruments in the Moses Room. A big queue of people is waiting to ask Unstarred Questions and very little time is available for them in the ordinary way. I am sure that some of those who wish to ask Unstarred Questions would be very happy if the opportunity were provided to take them in the Moses Room in the near future.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, if the Procedure Committee were to take away the matter and come back within the month, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I do not think that we would lose a great deal in terms of what the noble Lord has just said. I do not think that that gets to the nub of the question.
	This has been a general debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, referred to pre-legislative scrutiny. That subject is covered in the Constitution Committee's report on Parliament and the legislative process. Indeed, we are somewhat more enthusiastic about pre-legislative scrutiny than the Procedure Committee appears to be. But I look forward to the debate on the Constitution Committee's report on the Floor of the House in prime time.
	Perhaps I may respond briefly to one or two of the points raised. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that I, too, have taken part in debates in Grand Committee, but the exercise is a very different one. The noble Lord failed to address the point that I made earlier. I, too, would welcome more debates on committee reports, but it is not clear that that is the issue before us. Most members of the Procedure Committee seem to think that it is but, from reading the Procedure Committee report, I am afraid that that is not at all clear. The fear is that it is likely that the debates will be in place of, rather than in addition to, Chamber debates. That point was made very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.
	On the point about attendance at debates—

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I came to this debate with a completely open mind but was rather inclined to vote with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. But both my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, have said categorically that it is additional time. I am old-fashioned. I think that when Ministers, and especially Leaders of the House, say something from the Front Bench, they are not telling porky pies; they are actually saying what they mean. It seems to me that the very valid point made by my noble friend has been answered equally validly, if not more so, both by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the noble Baroness, Lady Amos.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am afraid that it has not been answered validly and I shall come to that point.
	As for the argument that few people speak, that is to confuse quality with quantity. What is said is more important than how many people say it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is right: members of the Procedure Committee are not novices; they include distinguished people. But I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the Leader's Group in 2002 contained distinguished people and I believe that the Leader's Group got it right on that occasion. That report also addresses the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.
	I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment. I am also grateful to those who have contacted me to express their support, including Members who are currently tied up with committee business. The more I listen to the debate, the more I think that we are debating different documents. I see nothing in the report—the document before us from the Procedure Committee—that identifies how the time will be additional. That is the crucial point, and I believe that the matters that I raised in opening remain valid.
	If the time is to be additional—I have heard it said that it is and I do not doubt that that is the intention of those who are saying it—it would be helpful to the House to know how that is to be achieved. If more time is to be provided, what is the mechanism for arranging that? I fully accept that the Procedure Committee cannot guarantee time, but I want to know the mechanism by which we will get there. As I said, it is not at all clear from the report that the time is to be additional.
	From my reading of the report—it is a pessimistic reading—the time would be "in place of" rather than "additional to". That was why I made my point to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. I cannot see why one cannot simply accept the amendment and invite the Procedure Committee to come back within a matter of weeks, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, with a clear explanation. That point was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I accept that that is the intention but there is nothing in the report that clearly identifies how it will be achieved. I think that inviting the Procedure Committee to come back on the matter would settle the minds of Members of your Lordships' House who are concerned about this particular procedure. If we have that and if the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, says that that is fine, the Procedure Committee can go away, meet very quickly—

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I believe that the House would like a unanimous view on this report. Will the noble Lord accept the situation if the Front Bench on the other side give an assurance that the Procedure Committee will consider this matter at an early date and return with proposals for how this can be managed? Trying to tie the whole thing down to about a month is difficult for anyone.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, agrees and if we had a very clear assurance that what is proposed is additional time, I would be happy.

Noble Lords: That is what is being said.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am not sure how it will be done. That is why I want the Procedure Committee to return quickly on this point. I look to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, to see whether he would be content with that assurance.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I said that I would be content for the issue to be examined further by the Procedure Committee. Of course, that would embrace a large number of issues related to the time available for debates and the venue in which debates take place, but that assurance would be quite enough for me. If there is that assurance, which I believe we have from the Chairman of Committees, it may be inadvisable to proceed with a Division at this stage.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, given what we have heard that there will be additional time and that we shall have a recommendation on that point, I shall not pursue the matter on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Expenses

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	I hope that noble Lords will not find this and the following Motions controversial. These Motions cover all of the recommendations about Members' allowances which were made in the report of the independent Senior Salaries Review Body, published on 21 October. The SSRB adopted the principle that Members of this House should not be out of pocket as a result of carrying out parliamentary duties. It proposed increases to a number of allowances and one reduction.
	The first Motion for consideration proposes an increase to the office costs allowance to a maximum of £65 a day. That would be payable on the days a Member carries out official parliamentary duties as well as for a maximum of a further 40 days where expenses have been incurred.
	The Motion also proposes an increase to day and overnight subsistence. The day subsistence allowance is to cover meals, refreshments and incidental travel costs, including car parking. Evidence to the SSRB suggested that the current rate was not sufficient as such costs have increased significantly above the rate of inflation. The SSRB recommended that this allowance should be increased to a maximum of £75 per day.
	The cost of accommodation and hotels in London has also increased significantly, so the SSRB recommended increasing the maximum for the night subsistence allowance to £150.
	Noble Lords who have a second home in London can claim night subsistence allowance for each night when they use that home before or after each session of this House that they attend. The basis of the current allowance is attendance at the House. Noble Lords who are absent from the House on official parliamentary business, such as Select Committee visits, have not been able to claim the overnight subsistence allowance. The SSRB has recommended that noble Lords in this position should be able to claim up to two-thirds of the night subsistence allowance when absent from the House on official parliamentary business.
	The second Motion relates to travel expenses for spouses and children. The SSRB has recommended that noble Lords should be able to claim reimbursement for up to six visits a year by either spouses, or children up to the age of 18, to Parliament.
	I turn now to the Motion that deals with recommendations about car, motorcycle and bicycle expenses. The SSRB noted that the rates of motor mileage allowance for noble Lords are very generous—57.6 pence per mile for the first 20,000 miles and 26.6 pence thereafter. That is significantly higher than the Inland Revenue approved rates of 40 pence per mile for the first 10,000 miles and 25 pence per mile thereafter. These rates were set in their present form in 1996 and have been uprated on 1 April each year by the retail price index. The SSRB takes the view that the current rates are unjustifiable and should be reduced.
	The review body also recommends that the bicycle allowance, should be increased to the Inland Review approved rate. That would go up from 7.5 pence a mile to 20 pence per mile. It also proposes a motorcycle allowance at the Inland Revenue approved rate of 24 pence per mile.
	The recommendations are entirely a matter for noble Lords. I commend the Motion to the House.
	Moved to resolve, That this House approves the following proposals with respect to expenses incurred by Members of this House—
	1 (1) For the purposes of paragraph (1) of the Resolution of 20 July 1994 (office costs allowance), the appropriate amount for expenses incurred in the period beginning with 10 November 2004 and ending with 31 July 2005 should be £65.
	(2) Paragraph (3)(b) of the 1994 Resolution (maximum daily amount for subsequent years) should apply as if that were the appropriate amount for expenses incurred in the year preceding 1 August 2005.
	2 (1) In determining in accordance with paragraph (2) of the Resolution of 25 July 1991 the limit on the expenses which a Lord may recover under paragraph (1)(a) of that Resolution (day subsistence for attendance at sittings), the maximum daily amount for a day in the period beginning with 10 November 2004 and ending with 31 July 2005 should be £75.
	(2) Paragraph (7)(b) of the 1994 Resolution (maximum daily amount for subsequent years) should apply as if £75 were the maximum daily amount for a day in the year preceding 1 August 2005.
	3 (1) In determining, in accordance with paragraph (4) of the 1991 Resolution, the limit on the expenses which a Lord may recover under paragraph (1)(b) of that Resolution (night subsistence for attendance at sittings), the maximum daily amount for a day in the period beginning with 10 November 2004 and ending with 31 July 2005 should be £150.
	(2) Paragraph (8)(b) of the 1994 Resolution (maximum daily amount for subsequent years) should apply as if £150 were the maximum daily amount for a day in the year preceding 1 August 2005.
	4 (1) Members of this House, except any Lord who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, shall be entitled to recover (in addition to the costs of travel for which other provision is made) expenses certified by them as expenses incurred on or after 10 November 2004 in staying overnight away from their only or main residence where it is necessary to do so for the purpose of attendance on visits away from the House—
	(a) as a member of a Committee of this House, other than a judicial Committee, or
	(b) as a member of an official delegation, or
	(c) as a representative of the House.
	(2) The amount which a Lord may recover under sub-paragraph (1) shall not exceed, for each day of attendance on such a visit, two-thirds of the maximum daily amount for the day which a Lord may recover under paragraph (1)(b) of the 1991 Resolution.
	(3) A Lord may not recover expenses incurred under sub-paragraph (1) above and under paragraph (1)(b) of the 1991 Resolution in respect of the same day of attendance.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may take one minute of noble Lords' time. In her opening speech, the noble Baroness was kind enough to say that noble Lords should not be "out of pocket". The last point she referred to was the motoring allowances. I heard murmurs of assent from behind her. The figures have been bandied about, certainly in the newspaper that is prevalent in my neck of the woods—or part of it—the Press and Journal in Aberdeen and the fact that people use what are called gas-guzzling cars. I happen to live 17 miles from the nearest railway station. If I use a taxi I am £16 out of pocket on each taxi ride that I make—perhaps twice a week. Looking around the Chamber I see one of my neighbours whom I know lives 70 miles from a station. She will be considerably more out of pocket than me. If I go to the airport, the round journey is 70 miles and I am an extra £30 out of pocket.
	The other allowances announced are extremely generous. As one of your Lordships who filled in allowances for three guineas a day in 1962, I am immensely grateful to noble Lords who have carried out the work and to the noble Baroness for presenting the allowances. Perhaps she will bear in mind that those of us from rural Scotland and perhaps other areas, are slightly penalised by the very last item in her address. She invited us to look at the tax form—I have it here. I notice it refers to 40 pence, but in most cases it refers to employees, which we are not, and in most cases employees have fuel costs. In my case I think it is about 3 pence a mile. The noble Baroness hopes that we will not be out of pocket, but some of us in rural areas—I look at the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and others—might be. Overall, we are very grateful for what she has done and I thank her.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, perhaps I can draw to the attention of the House a matter that I drew to the attention of the Senior Salaries Review Body, which was not mentioned in its report and is not dealt with here. That is travelling expenses for noble Lords who have a partner of many years standing, but who, for various reasons, may not be formally married. I know Members of the House who are in that position. The family homes can be several hundreds of miles from here and they are in the ridiculous position of the partners not being able to travel with the assistance that is clearly intended to support spouses.
	In this modern age, I believe that the partner of a noble Lord could be included. The way in which the Motion is framed could mean that a child of such a partnership would be entitled to travel with assistance, but not the partner who is the mother. I simply raise this matter to draw it to the attention of noble Lords. It is not a matter in which I have a particular interest, but I know Members for whom it is a problem. I cannot believe that that is what the House would wish. I hope that others listening to this may feel able, on another occasion, to raise the matter again. It is a travesty for someone who lives hundreds of miles away. I am pleased that a child can now receive support, but regret that a partner of many years standing is not able to benefit.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I say to noble Lords who have spoken in relation to the issue of motor mileage allowance and those who live in rural areas that I entirely understand the point. It is something that we will clearly have to keep under review and perhaps take up with the SSRB in future years.
	On the point of the eligibility of partners, I entirely recognise the concerns raised. The matter has been raised with me over the past couple of weeks. My understanding is that the children of unmarried partners would be entitled to the provision, but not the partners themselves. I am taking the matter further. However, at this point in time that remains the position. I commend the proposals to the House.
	Perhaps I may seek the indulgence of the House for a moment. I had hoped that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, would have said something on this item. This may well be one of the last occasions when the noble Baroness speaks in the House as the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Benches. I want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness. She is one of the figures in the House who has managed to combine acute intellectual power with an ability to present complicated ideas in a way that is easily understood. It is a rarity and a skill, of which I am very jealous.
	The noble Baroness used this skill to great effect as a Cabinet Minister and has continued to do so in her present role. The noble Baroness's qualities are greatly admired not only in this House but also outside. Last night—and I do not know whether she has been made aware of this—Jonathan Dimbleby said that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was the politician he would most like to be marooned with on a desert island. I have not had an opportunity to ask the noble Baroness if she and Jonathan Dimbleby share a taste in music.
	I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that we have all benefited from the noble Baroness's contributions from the Front Bench. I know that we all hope that she will continue to contribute to our debates. I should like to say a personal thank you to the noble Baroness for the support she has given me in the time that I have been Leader of the House.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may just say that the Leader of the House is characteristically most gracious and generous. I had not expected that bouquet; otherwise I would have addressed myself towards Lords' expenses. She may care to know that the former president of my party, my noble friend Lord Dholakia, has also named me as his companion on a desert island. I can see that when I go to a desert island I shall have an extremely exciting time. I thank very much the Leader of the House.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, lest it be thought that we on these Benches do not appreciate the enormously tremendous work that the noble Baroness has done, I also pay tribute to her.
	However, I had rather assumed that between now and the end of the Session the noble Baroness would have plenty to say on important pieces of legislation and that this may just be the start of a week of tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. If there were not a convention in the House that I had to describe her as a noble Baroness, I would describe her as "Shirley". But I would like to say we have all greatly appreciated the way in which she has spoken and commanded the attention of the House over a long period. She will recall that I am the only Member of the House who briefed her when she was Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection on the subject of the margins for the creamers that you put into your coffee. Since then I have had a high admiration for her attention to detail and her extremely important contribution to parliamentary democracy.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Travel Expenses for Lords' Spouses and Children

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved to resolve, That this House approves the following proposals with respect to travel expenses incurred by spouses and children of Members of this House on or after 10 November 2004—
	(1) The Resolution of 27 November 1996 is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (1) after "spouse of a Member" insert "or by any child aged under 18 of a Member".
	(3) For paragraph (2) substitute—
	"(2) Claims under this Resolution as it applies to journeys made by any person may be made by a Member in relation to attendance by that person at no more than 6 Parliamentary occasions in any year (beginning with 1 January)."
	(4) In paragraph (3) after "spouse of a Member" insert "or by any child aged under 18 of a Member".—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Car, Bicycle and Motorcycle Mileage Expenses

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved to resolve, That this House approves the following proposals with respect to payments of car, bicycle and motorcycle allowances to Lords for journeys which they have commenced on or after 10 November 2004—
	(1) The maximum allowance payable in respect of a journey by car, motorcycle or bicycle should be payable at the rate which is applicable to that kind of vehicle under subsection (2) of section 230 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, as amended from time to time.
	(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the reference in that subsection to "the first 10,000 miles" is to the total number of miles of travel by car by the Lord claiming the allowance, which is either—
	(a) undertaken for the purpose of attending this House for the purposes of his parliamentary duties, or
	(b) undertaken while on parliamentary duties within the United Kingdom.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children Bill [HL]

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	[The page and line references are to Bill 144, the Bill as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT

1 Clause 2, page 1, line 7, leave out from "promoting" to "and" in line 8 and insert "awareness of the views"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The amendment deals with the role of the commissioner within the Children Bill, an issue to which the House has quite rightly played close attention. The first group of amendments remove the reference to the word "rights" from the commissioner's general function and restore that function to one of promoting awareness of the views as well as the interests of children.
	The Government are committed to the aims and principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We value the convention and we willingly accepted an amendment in this House that the commissioner must have regard to the convention when determining children's interests. Contrary to some rumours, we have not removed this reference in another place.
	However, as well as having regard to the UNCRC, the whole thrust of the Bill and the whole thrust of our stance with regard to the commissioner is that we want to go much further. We want to build on the platform of rights, but we are not satisfied that merely a focus on rights itself will meet the needs of our children.
	We want, therefore, the commissioner to work for the well-being and interest of children in broader and more strategic terms. Clause 2 of the Bill as it left the Lords was amended in another place to restore the five "outcomes" as a focus for the commissioner's general functions. They are now part of Clause 2(3). These outcomes featured in the Green Paper Every Child Matters and are the foundation stone of the Children Bill. They seek to encapsulate in a limited number of words what matters to children and what matters to their parents, and they encapsulate it in outcome terms not in input terms, process terms or legalistic terms. That is the heart of the Bill and why it is such a radical Bill.
	The outcomes will be the focus for local work and local co-operation in 150 local authority areas in our country, and the framework against which local partners must analyse the needs of the children in their area and agree priorities for closing the gaps for children in those localities, compared to where those outcomes are currently and where they should be, either by reference to other children, other areas and other countries.
	In other words, it is above all a radical agenda for change and not a legalistic focus on complaints as the only element of the Bill. So it is fundamental to the Bill and it goes beyond the issue while recognising and building on rights. That is why we believe the outcomes should be at the heart of the Children's Commissioner's work alongside the regard that he must have to the UNCRC and that it must inform his work. It is not an either/or; it is both.
	The outcomes do not in any way constrain the commissioner's ability to raise any issue he thinks fit, but they do give a sharp edge to the way he will assess our collective success, both at national level and in localities, in achieving real practical progress on the ground that affects children's lives.
	The reason we have removed reference to "rights" in Clause 2 is that we want the commissioner's primary interest to be to ensure the system works for all children and young people. We do not want him to duplicate remedies elsewhere that are available, or to put him under pressure to undertake detailed casework, which will be unfeasible, given the child population of almost 12 million in England.
	We do not believe that that is the most effective role for the commissioner's focus. There should be a panoply of other remedies available to children and their supporters and advisers to ensure that their rights, as given effect in domestic legislation, are properly pursued. The commissioner should not get bogged down in the detail of individual complaints, except when he thinks that he should address an issue of public policy.
	We want the commissioner to raise the profile of children by promoting awareness of their views and interests, especially those of the most vulnerable, who may lack the skills or confidence to act on their own behalf. We want a commissioner who will identify systemic failures in public services at national or local level, systemic failures that identify where children's outcomes are not good enough and need to be changed. That is a massively important role for the commissioner. We want the commissioner to identify the problems that the Bill seeks to remedy and to act as a challenge to the system. The challenge is much more powerful when it is seen in those terms rather than as simply a further duplication of a complaints procedure process.
	Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 11 are consequential on Amendment No. 1, so I shall not speak to them unless the House wants me to.
	Turning to outcomes and Amendment No. 5, I am glad that I have the opportunity to restate how committed we are to both rights and outcomes. We want both; it is not a choice. We do not need to make a choice. That is behind us as an issue. I have led up to why Amendment No. 5 was tabled and passed in Committee in another place and reinstated the outcomes to the commissioner's function. It requires the Children's Commissioner, in the exercise of his Clause 2 function, to be concerned in particular with the views and interests of children relating to the listed aspects of their well-being. Restoring them to Clause 2 is essential to establish the commissioner's function in the same framework as the rest of the Bill and fully incorporate it as part of the new outcomes-based approach to children's needs and services in England. That is part of our desire to see the Bill as the centrepiece of a programme of practical change with measurable, tangible outcomes.
	During the previous debate in the House where the original amendment removing reference to those outcomes was passed, it was suggested that the choice was between outcomes and rights. As I said, it is not a choice. The two notions are complementary, not mutually exclusive. The Bill in the form before us today makes that clear. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides a set of principles as a framework or reference point for the commissioner to base his work on and the outcomes provide the drivers for tangible change.
	To ensure that is not a semantic point, it is fundamental to government policy that the outcomes, building on the rights, are the centrepiece of the Bill and the commissioner's responsibility must be aligned with that if he is to maximise his power to promote change. Lest there be any doubt, that is not an issue on which we intend to compromise because it is fundamental to children's needs in our society.
	Turning to the requirement for the commissioner to have regard to the UNCRC, we do not want to prevent the commissioner from promoting the UNCRC if he wants. Rather, we have said that he must have regard to it. We have listened to this House on that point and made it mandatory: he must have regard to the UNCRC. In summary, the outcomes are practical. Let me not go on.
	I turn to other commissioner functions and the issue of whistle-blowing and advocacy. Amendment No. 4 alters Clause 2(2) to remove paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert three new subsections. The text of Clause 2(2)(c) and (d) when the Bill left this House specified advice and advocacy services and inspection and whistle-blowing arrangements. Those particular areas, the result of an amendment to the Bill made in this House, are wide ranging. They suggest that the commissioner should monitor the effectiveness of delivery in those areas, which would change the focus of his functions too much. Reviewing those services would drag the commissioner into individual casework, a situation that, as I said—I hope that I have explained why—is undesirable.
	On independence, we have always intended that the commissioner be as independent as possible. If we are too prescriptive of what he should focus on as well as how he should carry out his work, we are at risk of limiting his independence of action and judgment to concentrate on what he thinks, and what children tell him they think, is important. Amendment No. 4 restores that independence by being less specific about the areas on which the commission may want to report, thus allowing him far more flexibility. In other words, he can do what he wants, and will not be told what he must do. It restores his freedom of action.
	However, in retaining the more general reference to complaints procedures as a subject that the commissioner may want to consider, we acknowledge that without an efficient complaints procedure, children will have difficulty making their voice heard and their legitimate grievances upheld. That matters. That is the proper role for the commissioner: to empower children as well as to act on their behalf when necessary. Noble Lords may be aware that draft regulations and guidance on the revised children's social services complaints procedure have now been issued for consultation and we anticipate that the commissioner may well want to be involved in due course in seeing whether those regulations work and deliver the services required.
	Again, that illustrates my argument. The commissioner will look to see whether the complaints procedures deliver the outcomes and redress that children need, rather than getting bogged down in trying to second-guess individual complaints, except where he thinks that they involve an issue of public policy.
	Amendment No. 6, which would replace "review and report" in Clause 2(3)(b) with the more flexible wording of "consider or research", is inspired by a similar wish to maintain the commissioner's scope and discretion. The wording "review and report" could appear to impose an obligation to produce a report whatever the circumstances. I cannot believe that any of us want that. He should make his judgments in accordance with the statutory duties.
	On individual cases, the Government tabled Amendment No. 8 in another place to reinstate a subsection of the original version of the Bill stating that the commissioner should not investigate the case of an individual child. The Government fully appreciate that an individual case may be the symptom of a wider issue. That is why we listened to this House and, under Clauses 4 and 5, the commissioner can hold an inquiry into the individual case of the child if he believes that it has wider policy implications. No one can stop him doing that.
	The House has not seen the Bill in this form before because, in a sense, we never got to that issue because of earlier debate. It is fundamental to that debate, because some noble Lords believe that we are depriving the commissioner of the power to go where he wishes, including the power to consider an individual child's case if he thinks that it raises an issue of public policy. The clause gives exactly that power to the commissioner but, at the same time, it does not burden him with the duty to consider every one of the hundreds and thousands of cases of complaints which, I promise your Lordships, would be brought to the commissioner if the House went along with the thrust of the amendments tabled by noble Lords, to which we will come. For that reason, the commissioner is at liberty to go where he wishes and is not burdened by becoming yet another ombudsman, except when he thinks that an issue of public policy is involved.
	Let me give the House an example of why that matters. There are many children in our society with special educational needs. It is extremely burdensome for their parents to try to ensure that their child gets the best education possible. Often, they think that the state does it right; often, they think that the state does it wrong. There are processes for appeal to both local authorities and an independent tribunal when they think that those judgments have been made wrongly. Those processes are essential. There are thousands of such cases. The commissioner should not be getting involved in trying to interpose himself in the local authority complaints process or the Special Educational Needs and Disability Rights Tribunal process. That is their job. He should certainly get involved if he thinks that the tribunal is not effectively meeting the needs of children, but that is a different function.
	We must keep our heads clear about those distinctions, otherwise we are in danger of dragging the commissioner into areas that will completely frustrate where he can have most power and effect most change. It is in his function of having a wider strategic view of children's issues and outcomes that he will have unique value. Many other bodies can already deal with complaints. If the House wishes, I can weary it with the detail, but I shall not for now.
	It has also been pointed out that other commissioners can get involved in investigative casework. That is true in Wales and Northern Ireland, but not true in Scotland. An issue of scale is involved. There are fewer than 1 million children in Wales and Northern Ireland. But even if the numbers were exactly the same, our stance would still be the same: the strategic focus should be on wider systemic change and challenge where outcomes are not being met, rather than duplicating other investigators.
	The Government tabled an amendment in Committee in another place that empowered the commissioner to assist a child to bring legal proceedings. The amendment was passed by 14 votes to three after a Division. Subsection (7) was the result of an opposition amendment tabled in this House.
	As we have stated, we want the commissioner to have a strategic role. There are already bodies to which children can turn for legal advice, such as the Children and Families Court Advisory Support Service (CAFCASS) and the Official Solicitor. Duplication would make no sense. The commissioner could, if he wished, act as a witness if called in proceedings. It remains the case that as part of his general Clause 2 function, the commissioner may look into complaints and advocacy procedures to ensure that they work effectively.
	Amendment No. 7 relates to child-friendly reports. We agree that reports published by the ccmmissioner should be as child-friendly as possible; after all, the commissioner is acting on children's behalf. However, the original provision placed too great a burden on the commissioner, affording him insufficient discretion to make his own decisions on how best to handle those reports. For good intent, I am sure, the original provision sought to specify,
	"the usual language of the intended recipients".
	But our lawyers believe that that could lead to all sorts of quagmires about what was "the usual language". Such a decision ought to be left to the commissioner's judgment. Again, the broader wording should be retained, leaving the commissioner discretion to act in a way that he thinks appropriate to the circumstances. That is how we should empower him rather than fettering him with second-guessing how he approaches the detail of his job.
	Amendment No. 9, on responses to recommendations, was moved and agreed in Committee in another place. It granted the commissioner powers to obtain responses to the recommendations in his report. Again, if I recollect correctly, we listened to the House on this issue and took note; we were glad to do so.
	On the commissioner's clout, it is fundamental that he has teeth as well as ears, to use the jargon. We have tabled amendments providing further powers to follow up his recommendations where appropriate. The amendment on flexibility of follow-up powers was phrased as simply as possible to allow flexibility in how the commissioner exercised that power and leaving the discretion to him.
	On the technical issue of remit beyond the age of 18, we tabled amendments in another place that replaced Clause 2(10) as it was worded when the Bill left this House. Both versions provide that certain young adults should be included in the commissioner's remit because of their exceptionally vulnerable circumstances. The new clause requires that any reference to a child other than in subsections (8) or (9) of Clause 2, which are concerned with the UNCRC, should include young adults aged 18, 19 or 20 who have been looked after by a local authority at any time since the age of 16 or have a learning disability. I hope that it is clear to the House why those should be exceptions. The reason that we seek to include them is because of their vulnerability and the fact that they may be in receipt of specific services.
	We have omitted young people in custody because they are otherwise in receipt of services for adults and therefore should not be the concern of the Children's Commissioner. There are other routes of remedy and redress. For that reason, although I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would like the reference restored, I must resist. If we included every potentially vulnerable group of young adults, we would muddle the Bill's purpose and focus. If the House is interested in those issues, we must look elsewhere for remedies rather than seeking to make a dog's breakfast of this Bill.
	I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accept these changes made and agreed in another place. Let me seek to return to where I started. We have listened to this House massively on the role of the commissioner; if I am prompted, I will illustrate just how much. The Bill as it comes to us with the recommendations of another place is absolutely right in terms of the role, focus and powers of the commissioner.
	The thrust of the amendments has in some areas made us look thoughtfully at the Bill, and we have sought to respond. But we are still in danger, if those amendments were pressed, of seeking to move the Bill and to muddle the role of the commissioner so that they focused on the investigation of individual complaints. Rights are massively important, but the commissioner will add leverage to the very large number of other people who have the power to investigate children's rights by looking at whether the systems are failing.
	The commissioner is even more crucial in looking at outcomes—do local authorities or government succeed in getting more 16 year-olds into higher education and skills training compared with other countries that are our competitors? That is a public policy question that matters massively. It is an outcome focus, not a rights focus. Nothing in the UNCRC touches that issue. But that is the challenge of this Bill to government and local authorities. We want a commissioner who focuses on those issues and challenges us to go further, faster and better to get those outcomes.
	It is because we are concerned about outcomes for children while also wanting to support proper protection of rights that we are hard and firm on this issue, having been, I hope, listening and flexible on many other issues. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Walmsley: rose to move Amendment No. 1A, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to this very lively team that has been working on the Bill for so many months. I thank him for the very clear way in which he has explained the Government's approach to the first group of amendments. He can take it that, if I have not tabled an amendment to a Commons amendment in this group, I welcome it. I hope that he will take that as read. I also pay tribute to the Minister's noble friend Lady Ashton, who has worked so hard with us all on this Bill. The fact that the Government have listened so hard to many of our proposals is a great tribute to her skills and ability as a Minister. It has been a great pleasure to work with her on the Bill.
	The Bill is all about children, so I ask noble Lords to cast their minds back to a Christmas or birthday when they were a child. Perhaps you very much wanted as a present a bike or a doll, but it was probably a particular kind of bike or doll. When the day came and you saw the bike-shaped or doll-shaped parcel, your excitement mounted. When you opened the parcel, there might have been a frisson of disappointment when you saw that instead of the red bike that you wanted, it was a blue bike, or instead of the Barbie doll that you wanted, it was a baby doll.
	We were all very excited when we saw the children's commissioner-shaped box in the first version of the Bill. But there was a frisson of disappointment when we saw that the commissioner's powers and level of independence as proposed by the Government were not what we and many hundreds of children's organisations around the country would have wished. They are certainly very inferior to the powers and independence of 40 other children's commissioners in 26 countries. I can see the Minister disagreeing with me but that is how things are in debate in your Lordships' House.
	Today we have a cross-party alliance of noble Lords who made changes when the Bill was before us previously to bring about what we think were great improvements to the powers and independence of the commissioner. Unfortunately, in another place all that was turned on its head and amended in Committee, with desultory discussion on the Floor of the House on Report. I ask noble Lords to consider whether it is appropriate to ask the Government to reconsider the commissioner's powers.
	We have tried to compromise with the Government to see where they have come from and to give them some comfort in the drafting of the amendments that we have tabled. I am sad to hear the Minister tell us that he is highly unlikely to compromise. The noble Lord mentioned, for example, that there was no need for choice between rights and the five outcomes. That is why we have accepted that and left the five outcomes in the amendment that came to us from the Commons but inserted "rights" as the principle on which the commissioner should base his or her work.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights does not even think that the five outcomes are necessary. It stated:
	"We conclude that it is unnecessary for the five outcomes listed in clause 2(3) of the Bill as originally introduced to be reinstated. If the Government feels they must, they should be clearly placed within the context of the CRC".
	Amendment No. 5A seeks to restore rights so that the five outcomes are seen clearly in the context of that convention. We have also circumscribed very carefully the circumstances under which the commissioner could look into the case of an individual child, to which I shall turn in a moment.
	Amendments Nos. 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A and 11A are about children's rights. Why do we need rights in this Bill? Why is raising the profile of children, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, about three minutes ago, not enough? There are several reasons for that. First, we do not want the commissioner to be limited to what the Government wish to target or measure. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to want local authorities, local children's authorities and everyone else to base their work on certain outcomes that can easily be measured. But unless those are seen within the context of children's basic rights, as so well described in the 54 article Convention on the Rights of the Child, they are not enough, which is why we need to put rights back in.
	Rights relate to all children. The UNCRC was signed by every country in the world apart from two. That can achieve long-term change for children, rather than just tinkering about with children's services. In addition, rights come with responsibilities. I do not know if your Lordships have seen this very handy little pocket guide to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is produced by UNICEF. On the front, it says, "A little book of children's rights and responsibilities", which is key to an understanding of the UNCRC. It refers to families' responsibilities and children's responsibilities within their family. That is why we think that that is a much better underpinning for this very welcome Bill than simply a set of five measurable outcomes.
	All the other commissioners in the world have the duty to promote and safeguard children's rights within their brief. That is very important. Our commissioner should be able to interact on an equal basis with his or her colleagues across Europe. It is very notable that the president of the European Network of Ombudspeople for Children has written to the Minister with responsibility for children in another place—Mrs Margaret Hodge—explaining that unless our commissioner is given similar powers, it is unlikely that he or she will be eligible to join the network and work constructively with other ombudspeople for children. That would be a great pity.
	My next point concerns what children want. I can quote some examples of what children have said. In June 2002, children and young people gave evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights as part of an examination into the Children's Commissioner. One 15 year-old said:
	"I think a children's rights commissioner would create a culture of respect for children and young people by turning round most of the public's perceptions of how we are. By this, I mean turning round ideas that we have no rights and are violent good-for-nothings".
	Another child, in a session with the Minister for children which was organised by UNICEF, said:
	"What is the point in having a Children's Commissioner if they can't do their job properly?".
	In 2004, the Hansard Society's HeadsUp forum held an online consultation with about 100 children. One young person summed up their aspirations for the commissioner with the words:
	"A Children's Commissioner should be someone who believes that the rights of children should be counted. They should be committed to helping children and finding out what matters to them".
	So children want a commissioner whose duty is to promote and safeguard their rights.
	It is quite illogical, particularly in Amendment No. 11, for the Government to allow us to insert the UNCRC, a convention of 54 articles that are wholly based on children's rights, and then remove the word "rights" from the first part of the sentence. That makes the Government's concession, which was very welcome, in allowing us to change "may" to "must" in relation to the commissioner having regard to the UNCRC, quite meaningless.
	The Government have not convinced us that there is something so different about English children that they require a different sort of champion. There is no basis on which one can possibly regard the Government's proposals as better than all the other children's ombudspeople in the world. Mrs Hodge may think that she knows better than everyone, but I would prefer to rely on the knowledge and experience of all those other 40 ombudspeople working successfully around the world.
	Perhaps I may turn now to Amendment No. 8A with regard to individual cases. This is another situation in which we have listened to the Government's concerns and have tried to address them. I really would like to echo the words of the Minister. None of us wants the commissioner to be bogged down in individual cases. But there would be no need for him or her to be so if Amendment No. 8A is carried.
	On looking at the amendment, your Lordships will see that we have circumscribed very carefully the circumstances in which the commissioner could take up an individual case. I accept what the Minister has said about him or her being able to conduct inquiries if a particular case has implications for the wider community of children and public policy. However, sometimes it is necessary to take up a case and to establish a principle. In putting down this amendment, that is what we want the commissioner to be able to do.
	Amendment No. 10A is about legal proceedings. Your Lordships added the ability to assist a child with legal proceedings as a last resort when the Bill left this House. The conditions were carefully circumscribed so that the commissioner would not be able to take his eye off the big picture and get involved in a lot of legal actions. But we still think that that is a necessary part of the toolkit of a powerful and independent champion for children.
	As regards independence, I draw your Lordships' attention to the legislation putting in place the three most recent Children's Commissioners in Mauritius, Malta and Croatia. Every one of them talks about the independence of the commissioner. Croatia's legislation states:
	"None is allowed to instruct or give orders to the ombudsman for children in his work".
	Malta's legislation states that,
	"the Commissioner shall act independently and shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority".
	I know that we are not in a position today to go back to the issue of whether the Secretary of State can or cannot direct the commissioner, but it is regrettable that that remains in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 26A is about putting young offenders within the remit of the responsibility of the Children's Commissioner. We very much welcome the acceptance by the Government that young people leaving care and with learning difficulties should be the responsibility of the Children's Commissioner. That is not demeaning to them or patronising on our part, which was a suggestion made in another place.
	Your Lordships will note that what holds them together is the fact that they have had a particular disadvantage in life. Therefore, they need the continued support of the Children's Commissioner for just a little longer than those children who have not had those disadvantages. The same applies to young offenders. Many young offenders have been in care; most have been excluded from school; and many come from families who have not been able to give them the guidance and support that the best families in this country can give to their children.
	The simple logic of the cut-off age of the 22nd birthday that we have chosen is that that is the age at which young offenders transfer from a youth offenders institution to an adult prison. From then they are regarded as an adult, but not before. Before that they are regarded as a child or a young person. So it is logical that the champion of children and young people should be able to support them.
	In summary, these amendments encapsulate what children say they need in a Children's Commissioner, and what the experts representing children say they need. This is also what experienced and successful ombudsmen for children right across Europe say is needed—and they should know. Are the roles of every single one of those commissioners muddled, to repeat the word used by the Minister, because their briefs are based on children's rights? Why do the Government think they know better than all those experienced people?
	I hope that noble Lords will consider very carefully whether they are able to send these amendments back to the House of Commons for the Government to give this point further consideration. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Baroness Walmsley.)

Earl Howe: My Lords, what we must not do at this stage of the Bill, and it is something that the noble Baroness has successfully avoided, is to reprise all the arguments from our debates at earlier stages. However, in endorsing all that the noble Baroness has said, I would like to make three brief points.
	The first point is to say that what the Government are seeking to do in relation to the commissioner's functions makes no logical sense. In the Bill as it stood originally, where, as the House will recall, the commissioner was given a power but not a duty to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it was perfectly tenable for the Government to resist the mention of rights elsewhere in the clause. Much as we may not have liked it, Ministers drew a line which made clear that the commissioner's functions would be about promoting awareness of children's views and interests, not about safeguarding their rights.
	But it seems to me that when the Government accepted the amendment to change "may" to "must" in subsection (8), the whole nature of the commissioner's role became quite different. Originally, the mention of the UNCRC had the appearance of an afterthought. Now the scales are tipped the other way. If we read subsection (8) as the Government want it to read, the commissioner will be looking at children's interests within the context of children's rights. I share the doubts expressed by the noble Baroness about exactly what that means, but the whole emphasis has changed. That is why I believe it makes no logical sense to resist going the whole way and saying, as the Lords amendment did, that the commissioner will concern himself or herself with promoting and safeguarding the rights of children as well as their interests.
	The second point I want to make is to say that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness attempt to meet the Government half way, which is important. I might have hesitated before sending back to the other place exactly the same wording as before, but I have no difficulty in asking the other place to consider the amended wording, which retains the key concepts to which Ministers are firmly wedded and which we previously cut out; that is, the views of children and the key outcomes which children have said are important to them, and to which the Minister himself referred.
	The Government may voice the fear, as the Minister has today, that these amendments will involve the commissioner getting bogged down in investigating individual cases. I do not believe that that is so. I do not know of anyone who wants the commissioner to get bogged down in individual complaints and grievances. That is not what he is about, and I hope that the wording of the amendment forestalls that criticism.
	My last point is about why it is right to ask the other place to look at this matter again. This is an extraordinarily important moment in legislative history. The creation of a Children's Commissioner for England is something for which many thousands of people up and down the country have been praying for a very long time. Yet what the Government first said they were going to give us and what they are actually proposing to give us now are two quite different things. The model envisaged by the Government will not only make the commissioner a fish out of water as regards all the other children's commissioners in the country and, indeed, in Europe, as he will be much weaker than any of them, but also in an international context he will be unrecognisable as a real commissioner. As such, as we understand it, he will not be allowed the join the European network of ombudspersons for children.
	That really is a crazy state of affairs. It might be one thing if the time devoted to the debate on the Floor of the other place had done justice to the importance of the issue and the clear message conveyed by noble Lords, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be said to have done so. The whole debate on the functions of the commissioner held last week in the House of Commons took barely half an hour. Members of another place need to take another look.
	I believe that this is a golden opportunity for Parliament and for the Government to deliver what Ministers themselves have trumpeted: a powerful and effective champion on behalf of children. If in due course the noble Baroness decides to divide the House, I shall most certainly follow her.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I think that all noble Lords would join in thanking the Government for the changes to the Bill that they have accepted, and for the explanation we have heard today in this House and made earlier in another place of why they have made these changes. However, another point needs to be emphasised. The case of Victoria Climbié has been a focus for so many of the reasons why noble Lords want to push certain issues further. It is at least arguable that she would have been saved had she been listened to and taken seriously. In that respect, the example of how the Victoria Climbié case illustrates the Government's emphasis on listening to children is absolutely right. We must become better at listening to children and taking them seriously.
	But that is not enough. Children need information about their rights, they need effective services and systems designed especially for them, and they need the adults in their lives to respect them. They also need a powerful and independent champion to promote and safeguard those rights at all times. It is for those reasons that we feel so passionately about this.
	Contrary to what the Minister has said this evening, and what has been said by the Minister for children in another place, there is nothing limiting about the proposed focus on rights and interests. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child covers all aspects of childhood. Outcomes are important, but the rights must come first, along with the responsibilities that exist alongside them.
	I tend to forget that the UK ratified the UN convention in 1991. Indeed, as president of the UK committee of UNICEF, I was personally involved at the time. We looked at all this in detail. However, I have to admit that I have forgotten a lot of what is set out in certain articles, and that there are 40 rights in total, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
	Literally everything is covered by the convention, including that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all matters affecting that child. The right to education is covered, as are the aims of education, which are described. There is the right to play and leisure, which was a subject that came up a lot in our debates on the Bill. I mention also the right to maximum survival and development set out in Article 6, while the right of children separated from their parents to special protection and assistance is dealt with in Article 20.
	I am sure that my noble friend Lord Northbourne will be pleased to learn that the state has a responsibility to support parents in the upbringing of children. That is set out in Article 18. And let us not forget that it was due to noble Lords in this House that one mention of parents is now made in the Bill; only one, but at least it is there.
	Further down the list of rights are those covering children who get into trouble with the law. That point was made very effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. When we look at the facilities available to young people in prison, we see that they are very inadequate indeed. The more likely it is that young people are moved from prison to prison, the less likely it is that they will receive any of the extra support they need. The importance of parents—this will again please my noble friend—is stressed in three separate articles—Articles 5, 7 and 18.
	The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child took 10 years to draft. We know that all but two countries—sadly, the United States is one of them—have ratified it. It is an absolute milestone in what we should be doing. It sets the agenda for measuring the outcomes on which the Government are so keen. However, I am worried that it seems as though the Government have settled for a half-decision.
	I have warmly welcomed the Bill, as have many other noble Lords. Perhaps I am about to be a little unkind, but I do not believe that I am. The Government seem to be saying, "Let's have a Children's Commissioner, but let's make sure he or she does not stray into difficult policy areas. Let's ensure he or she does not get involved in difficult individual cases. Let's ensure that he or she does not go into the more questionable areas of the Government's human rights record. Let's ensure that we do not have to find too much extra money". The commissioner will have a budget of £2.5 million for 11 million children. Will that go very far?
	I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his colleagues that a little more "give" is necessary, so that we can all celebrate what could be an effective and important Bill.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I too am puzzled by the government amendments with regard to rights. I should like to ask my noble friend in what way is the commissioner to have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is entirely about rights? In another place, our honourable friend Margaret Hodge said that,
	"we do not wish to establish in England a commissioner whose primary purpose is to police individual rights".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/04; col. 204.]
	That is fair enough. But after these amendments, the commissioner may not promote, safeguard, encourage the taking account of, or advise the Secretary of State about or review and report on. She or he may not even consider what the rights of children are. In what way, therefore, is the commissioner to have regard to the articles of the United Nations convention, the only purpose of which is to assert specific rights?

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am concerned about not having rights on the face of the Bill. The UN convention is exceedingly important, but if it is not there we will send a mixed message to society that it is somehow less important. Children do not have a vote and have no one to protect their rights. I had understood the role of the commissioner to be a huge step forward in meeting that commitment to children in this country, and I am uncertain what will happen if it is not on the face of the Bill. It is sad that other countries are planning implementation of their action plans on the UNCRC, including the new member states. They are storming ahead. We have this incredibly historic Bill before us and we have somehow deleted the word "rights". I hope that the issue will be looked at again.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I, too, wish to say a word in defence of rights. I speak as one who believes that the patriation of the European Convention on Human Rights by Her Majesty's Government is one of their signal achievements—it makes me proud to live in a country that has done so—and it seemed to me that the Bill was an attempt to move us along the track on which that Act had started us.
	Many people, not least within the Churches, are very worried about an emphasis on rights. Many people say that the notion of human rights is being used for purposes which are alien to the intentions of the original framers of the convention. I believe that they have the right to be worried, except that when it comes to the defence of the rights of the most vulnerable, and especially of children, we are right in the area where the European Convention on Human Rights should play its part. I believe that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a follow-through of the determination to secure for human beings—and that means, especially and above all, the most vulnerable human beings—their rights.
	The second matter I should like to raise in defence of restoring the word "rights" to the Bill is that, whether or not we write it on the face of the Bill, no commissioner worth her salt will be able to do anything along the lines of pursuing the outcomes that the Government wish to see without being not a police person but an advocate for the rights of the child. I do not see how the job can be done without making it clear to our society the points at which it is still not succeeding in enshrining human rights in the case of children.
	I believe that that is why the organisations which advocate the cause of children have so vigorously expressed their regret at the Government's determination regarding the amendments before the House today. Their advocacy has to be taken seriously. They understand what advocacy involves and they understand that it cannot be done without giving central place to the rights of the child. It is utterly defeatist to assume that the only way you can become involved in advocating the rights of the child is by becoming ground down in the detail of individual cases. It is precisely individual cases—not in being ground down by them, but attending to them—that yield the policy insights we need for securing not only the rights of the child but, on that base, the outcomes that the Government have in mind.
	I hope that the final thing I have to say will not alienate noble Lords by being something of a piece of biblical exposition. Like many other noble Lords, I stand in a tradition which has asserted that there is a primacy to the child, and that those who do not attend to the primacy of the child are not attending to the primacy of the child within them, and therefore are not attending to that of God in them and in other people.
	We have suffered a great deal from exposition of those texts in terms of certain qualities that children have, which is not their central point. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has written very movingly about our culture as one in which children are losing their childhood. Insisting that rights are on the table is our way, in our society and in our world, of insisting that children are to come from the periphery of our society to its centre; are to be the criterion of judgment of the health of our society; and therefore are to be defended in their rights and not simply measured by how much better outcomes in this or that way we manage to achieve.
	By stressing the importance of rights on the face of the Bill, we are insisting on the centrality of children. This is important if the human rights of all of us are to be safeguarded. I very much support the noble Baroness's amendment.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, I hope that something may be said from these Benches. I shall speak very briefly, because this is a topic that generates many speeches. I am concerned, as someone who sits on these Benches, at the surrenders made in the House of Commons which have significantly weakened aspects of the Bill, particularly the role of the commissioner. I wish to make two points.
	First, I think that the Government have a tendency to elaborate splendid liberal policies in theory and enshrine them in legislation which then, in practice, slip away and are undermined. We will be discussing one a bit later on devolution, which seems to be a classic case of how principle is undermined in practice. But this is a Government who have passed the Human Rights Act; it is a noble feature, as the right reverend Prelate said, of their policy. Yet there is this extraordinary reluctance to include it, which seems to undermine the intellectual and philosophical context in which these matters are discussed.
	This also achieves something else, which is very dangerous. Something enshrined in statute somehow slips away into understandings, informality and convention. Thereby, a very important instrumental sanction is weakened as well. That seems a great pity and an inconsistency on the part of the Government.
	My second point is more practical. Why do we have different principles—different concepts—for the four commissioners in these islands? The commissioners in Wales—partly through pressure in this House, notably, I recall, from my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies—in Scotland and in Northern Ireland have a much stronger intellectual context and legal and instrumental framework than the commissioner for England. Frankly, the English—and I am not an English person—have been fobbed off with second best. Why should this be? Why should the commissioners for Welsh children, for Scottish children and for Northern Irish children be altogether stronger in their moral authority and their instrumental powers?
	It seems to me that this will lead to inconsistency and also to unfairness for the far greater number of children in England. The Minister's point about there being many more children in England seems to work against his argument rather than in favour of it. So I have much sympathy with the amendment, and I hope that the Government will rethink at this late stage.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I would like to point out the inconsistency, which is exactly what the right reverend Prelate said, between having the Human Rights Act on the statute book and not mentioning the rights of children in the Bill. There is very likely a historical reason for this. For a very long time, numbers of people who were interested in the law and jurisprudence were very hostile to the concept of human rights. We kept the Human Rights Act at bay as long as we could because we wanted to think of rights as essentially legal.
	When we got on to moral rights, or natural human rights, we became uneasy, because the tradition of Bentham and the positivists was very strong. But we have crossed that barrier; we have become more American. We are now prepared to talk about human rights. Of course this leads to litigation in particular cases. Inevitably it will, until a certain amount of case law is established in which we begin to be a bit clearer about what human rights are.
	If we have accepted that there is such a thing as a human right, then why is it impossible to accept that there is such a thing as a children's right? Children, after all, are human. In the extreme cases of vulnerable children, there seems every reason to forget our arid positivism and recognise that children, as children, have inalienable rights not to be treated in the way that we know that some very vulnerable children have been treated.
	I simply cannot see any intellectual justification for leaving out rights from the face of the Bill. I urge the Government to think about the inconsistency of having accepted human rights and now refusing to accept children's rights.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, earlier the noble Earl, Lord Howe, described this Bill as historic. I very much agree with him. It is a great pity, in a sense, that at the final stages of what I think will prove to be enormously effective legislation, there is a disagreement between noble Lords who all, I am sure, want to see the best for children.
	My noble friend Lord Morgan said that this was a splendid idea which was being undermined in some of the practical amendments to the Bill that were made in another place. I take the opposite view. It is wonderful to have rhetorical and grand phrases to describe the role of children's commissioners. I have no doubt that when it comes to the comparison between the proposed commissioner in England and all the other commissioners of the world, the language we use is not quite so grandiose.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, what does the noble Lord say about the incredible distinction between this proposed English commissioner and the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish commissioners?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was coming to that. The proof of the pudding is in the outcome of the work that will be produced by those commissioners.
	It is very easy to use eloquent language to describe the role of the children's commissioner, but it is a very difficult role to undertake. The emphasis that is given in the Bill by the amendment made in the other place on outcomes is surely the right approach.
	At the end of the day, this role will be about influencing and helping to change the way in which governments, different departments, local authorities and all the agencies involved work. Putting the emphasis on the practical outcome of that work will in the end lead to a much more effective commissioner.
	Very recently, the Constitution Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, discussed the need for post-legislative scrutiny—in other words, coming back after two or five years to look at how effective legislation has been in practice. I would very much welcome that opportunity. I think that what is contained in the legislation as amended by the other place gives us a much better opportunity to change children's services for the better.
	I would also like to comment briefly on Amendment No. 8A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which deals with casework. I recognise that the noble Baroness has attempted to meet the point, in that paragraph (b) says that any investigation by the commissioner,
	"would not duplicate work that is the function of another person".
	However, I suggest that this would prove quite unworkable in practice. Having to make a judgment about whether any particular intervention duplicated the work of another agency would be very difficult.
	There is a genuine concern that if there is any uncertainty and it is felt that the commissioner has a right of intervention in individual cases where general public policy is not involved, it will lead to confusion over responsibility and accountability. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, is in his place. What I took from his remarkable report into the tragic circumstances of the death of Victoria Climbié, first and foremost, was a lack of clear accountability.
	The changes made in children's services are about giving us a very strong line of accountability. If we were to accept the amendment, even though modified by the noble Baroness, it would detract from that accountability. I hope that we will not accept that.

Baroness David: My Lords, I am sure the Minister must be very happy to have one voice in support, but I am afraid that he will not have mine. When the Bill was considered in this House during the summer, I felt there was agreement that we had much improved it by cross-party amendments. In particular, there was very strong agreement that a Children's Commissioner for England should have the same general functions as those in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to promote and safeguard the rights and interests of children.
	However, the Bill has come back to us with the general function that was given to the commissioner in the original Bill in March restored: the commissioner shall promote "awareness" of the views and interests of children. That is much weaker than the role of the other commissioners in the UK and weaker than those in Europe, as the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness have said.
	I do not see how the Government can square their promise in the Green Paper of a powerful, independent champion for children with what is now in Clause 2. Even at this late stage, I hope very much that the Minister can be persuaded not to spoil this much welcomed initiative and to restore the promotion of rights to the commissioner's general function. I hope that the Commons can be persuaded, when they look again at the Bill, to think rather carefully about this matter. That view has been very strongly put by every speaker so far, except my noble friend Lord Hunt. I very much hope the Minister can be persuaded by us and that the Commons can be persuaded to put "rights" back into the Bill.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, this House has considered the Bill with rigour and insight. I have had the pleasure of being present for most of the discussion on it. It is fitting to pay tribute to all noble Lords who have discussed the Bill and discussed children's welfare and rights with such passion and enthusiasm.
	I am as keen as anyone that we should have a commissioner with power, but I simply cannot agree that the proposed commissioner will be a fish out of water, as my noble friend Lord Morgan described him.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, no.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am sorry. My noble friend described him as second best. I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, described him as a fish out of water.
	The key change that we succeeded in making to the Bill was that the commissioner "must" have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. "Must" have regard was changed from "may" have regard. Surely that is an umbrella function which removes the need to insert "rights" in all the other parts of the Bill.
	The commissioner should have a strategic role in influencing systems at a local level, which will in practice secure children's rights and positive outcomes for children. Those systems will cover most of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in moving her Amendment No. 8A. Victoria Climbié was let down by systems at a local level, which failed her. As the right reverend Prelate said, children come in from the periphery at a local level. That is what the commissioner will influence.
	The commissioner should not dabble in the kind of detail that some noble Lords seem to be proposing, but in principles. In her extended, wonderful metaphor about Christmas presents, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke about a "frisson" of disappointment in the commissioner. I think that I can live with "frisson". As long as I had the bike, I could get used to the colour.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 10A, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. In doing so, I welcome Amendment No. 26, which concerns care leavers and young people with learning disabilities. I was encouraged to hear in our previous debate on the Bill about the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. I was encouraged, too, about how receptive she was to the proposal, given that there is some difficulty in discriminating between older young people and children.
	The amendment would be very helpful to the Children's Rights Commissioner, with whom I was speaking today. He emphasised that there are areas he cannot look at but which affect children leaving care. The new Children's Commissioner will be able to look at those areas; for instance, housing for those young people, who are often poorly educated, have difficulty finding employment and can gain access only to the poorest housing. The commissioner will be able to look at such issues and I very much welcome that.
	However, I am deeply saddened that the Government have not been able to accept the provision for under 22 year-olds in young offender institutions. If I remember it correctly, about 40 per cent of them have come through care, but when I spoke to the governor of a young offender institution during a recent visit, he did not know how many people in the institution came out of care. There appears to be a loss of care leavers in the prison system. They are often very immature and vulnerable.
	When I spoke with Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons about young offender institutions, she spoke about the positive effect of the Youth Justice Board's dealings with under 18 year-olds. Where they used to share institutions with the under 22 year-olds, there was a knock-on effect for those under 22-year-olds. It is to the benefit of the under 18 year-olds that they are now are moving out of the prison estate, but to the detriment of under 22 year-olds. I regret that and I hope that the Government will be able to think again about this aspect of the Bill.

Lord Laming: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, I am extremely grateful to the Government for bringing forward the Bill and I admire greatly the thought that has been given in this House to strengthening the Bill as it has gone through its various stages.
	However, I am concerned at what seems to be a slight over-preoccupation with rights. Until the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, spoke, I was beginning to feel rather isolated and lonely. Of course, we all agree that rights are very important, but we must have in mind that the human rights legislation applies to every citizen, including children. There is already a director of children's rights in the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, may be right that, as a country, we were rather slow to accept the importance of rights for every citizen, but we need to be careful not to go to the other extreme and see rights as the central issue in every piece of legislation.
	In looking at the Bill, we need to pay particular attention to Clauses 4(1) and 8, which have been deliberately included in the Bill. I am sure that your Lordships will not underestimate the significance of Clause 8, which states that the commissioner "must have regard" to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in everything that he does. Nothing could be clearer than that in informing the work of the new Children's Commissioner in this country.
	But, and this is a big "but", the role of the Children's Commissioner in our society, as set out in the Bill, will be so much wider than the matter of rights. It is very important that the ambitions which have been spoken of so ably in this House as the Bill has continued through its different stages are reflected in the work of the commissioner. Time after time, we have emphasised that the work of the commissioner should be broadly based on ensuring the well-being and proper development of all children and enabling them to fulfil their potential and become effective members of society. That is more ambitious than some of the roles that are accorded to other commissioners in other countries. Balance has to be struck between rights and that broader agenda. We are not creating a Bill of rights. We are creating a Bill for a Children's Commissioner, not a rights commissioner or an ombudsmen, and we need to bear that in mind. Mention has been made of Victoria Climbié, but all the rights that have been passed by Parliament would not have helped her. What would have helped Victoria Climbié is if the duty to care, which is envisaged in the Bill on every one of the key services, had been carried out properly. If the duty to care had been carried out at a local level, it would not have been an issue of rights but an issue of practice—an issue of an outcome for a child who needed our help. It is very important that we make that clear in the Bill. Certainly, for my part, I have never thought that it was a function of the Children's Commissioner to be involved in helping children and young people in legal proceedings.
	Finally, on Amendment No. 8, I hope that noble Lords will excuse a rather personal comment. During my time as chief inspector, I received a stream of requests from families, individuals, grandparents and neighbours, asking me to investigate how a case was being handled either by the courts or local authorities or by some other service. Had I felt it appropriate, I could of course have intervened, but for the most part I felt that it was my responsibility to direct those people to the proper mechanisms that had been put in place by Parliament to deal with individual concerns, be they matters of appeal, tribunals, ombudsmen or complaints procedures.
	We must allow the proper procedures set by Parliament to fulfil their separate and distinctive functions, and we must recognise that in all cases involving family breakdown and the removal of children, there will be pain and conflict and quite often a feeling of anger and injustice. That is why Parliament has put in place the machinery for challenging the decisions made by those in authority in our country. It is not the job of the Children' Commissioner to second-guess the roles accorded by Parliament to the other bodies.
	What we have put in place in Clause 4 is the opportunity for the Children's Commissioner to pursue individual cases that raise issues of public policy relevant to other children. I believe that no Children's Commissioner worth his or her salt—

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, would not the noble Lord accept that, in the proposals being put forward, the key issue is that the commissioner himself should have the right to decide which are the cases that raise issues of public policy—they should not be chosen for him by the Secretary of State?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is exactly what the Bill says—that the commissioner has that right in Clause 4. Whenever he believes that there is an issue of public policy, he has a right to investigate an individual complaint however he wishes, and no one can stop him.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention, because it helps me to make my final point. I do not believe that a Children's Commissioner worth his or her salt would have any difficulty in finding an issue of public policy in an individual case, if he or she wanted to do that. It would be a decision for the Children's Commissioner under this Bill to do that. If I were the Children's Commissioner—although I have no such aspirations—I would have no difficulty in finding a public policy issue to investigate a case, if I wished to do so; nor would I be deterred from doing so by the Secretary of State or anyone else, especially in the light of the powers given in this Bill.
	I hope that the joint efforts of the Commons and this House have produced a Bill that we can all take some pride in, as it affects the well-being of children in this country, and I hope that the amendment will not get pressed to the vote.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall do my best not to get too passionate about these issues, although I feel so. I feel so partly because I have, as part of my policy responsibility, to work with my good friend Margaret Hodge and the Secretary of State to make this Bill a reality. I believe that the focus on the notion of every child matters, and on how to deliver change for children in practice so that their lives are better and they fulfil their potential more than would otherwise be the case, is one of the most challenging and important public policy issues before us. That is what this Bill is all about.
	I also feel passionate because I have the responsibility, in my portfolio, for vulnerable children. I shall touch on why I believe that we are in danger of missing the point in this debate, and why I worry that the rights, needs and outcomes for vulnerable children will be better protected if we do not make these changes in the way that is being argued for.
	However, I shall move on, because the House does not want to be delayed too much. The argument has been put that the Children's Commissioner is weaker than other commissioners. It would not help if I went into a lot of detail, but I passionately believe that the role of the Children's Commissioner is much more powerful than that of others. I have looked at other commissioners' roles. The focus of the Children's Commissioner is not only to consider individual rights, which he is obliged to do by the Bill, but to consider their outcomes. That is a mindset that other commissioners, other legislatures and other countries do not have. I know that from working as a Europe Minister, with good European colleagues. There is an obsession with process and input in Europe, but there is not an obsession with how change is made to happen on the ground. We are in the vanguard here, not behind.
	We are in the vanguard because if rights alone and the enforcement of rights were sufficient, we would be living in paradise already—and we are not, because rights alone do not achieve enough change on the ground. Life, unfortunately, is more complicated than that. The effect of the amendments would be to push the commissioner into being a super-complaints-handler, when we already have plenty of people there with that responsibility. We want, and children want, much more of him than that—which is why we have to focus on that point.
	One of your Lordships said that children wanted a commissioner to promote rights and outcomes—of course, and they will get it. That is what this Bill does. The commissioner can consider any individual complaint by a child if he believes that it raises an issue of public policy. We have listened to this House—but that is there, in the Bill. He can consider hundreds of such complaints, if he believes it to be right. But he should have the discretion to do so and not be driven by the pressure of a legislative shift, which this House seeks to make, to push him into the role of a complaints handler. That is why we are in danger of making a major mistake.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the Minister explain why he believes that the commissioner is entirely independent as a result of Clause 4, when subsection (3) of that clause says:
	"Before holding an inquiry under this section the Children's Commissioner must consult the Secretary of State"?
	Why does he have to do that?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, why I say that he is completely independent is that, while out of courtesy and as a matter of good public policy he must have a discussion with the Secretary of State, he is completely at liberty to do as he wishes after that consultation.
	It has been said that Europe knows best in this debate, but I do not believe so. We are going further than most other countries in terms of the role of our legislation getting outcomes improved and effective action on rights, rather than simply words. The commissioner has to be aligned with that.
	I read the UNCRC last night, on the train to Manchester. The benefit of our railways is that they give us much opportunity to do such things. As I read it, I thought about looked-after children, which is one of my weighty responsibilities. The House knows about looked-after children—the tens of thousands who leave local authority care every year, having had to be taken away from their parents to be given better protection by the state. Of course, the UNCRC is absolutely right in all that it says: it says that the state must take appropriate action and must act with the interests of the child before it. That is in the UNCRC, as it is in the Children Act 1989. It is all there.
	The issue is not simply the rights of the child, but what happens in practice to looked-after children. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, looked-after children get appalling outcomes: they underachieve in education, take drugs in massive and disproportionate numbers, end up in prison in disproportionate numbers and have major mental health problems. That is the sort of issue that we are focusing on, and that is what this Bill is about. That is what the commissioner is about. We should not pass worthy words that make us feel better when we go home at night. We are considering how to shift practice on the ground so that looked-after children do not have a desperately miserable, failed life, as a consequence of their upbringing. The commissioner will focus on the issues: do the local authorities improve outcomes, and do the Government do what they should? That is why it is so important not to bog the commissioner down in detail.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked in what ways the commissioner would have to have regard to the UNCRC. The answer is, "In everything that he does". He will consider whether children are getting those rights in practice and whether things are working in practice. That is why we made it a duty to have regard to it. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, talked about the duty to have regard to the UNCRC. She was absolutely right.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester said that we must be most concerned about the most vulnerable. We must be advocates for the rights of the child. The right reverend Prelate is right about that.
	The commissioner will not be a second-best commissioner. He or she will be a commissioner like no one else in the world. I promise the House that others will follow the model, if they follow the fundamental legislation on which it sits, which covers the challenge to public bodies to get the outcomes in practice. That is why there is a difference. It is not that we are in a worse position than they are in Wales. I would say that this is a more powerful commissioner than exists in Wales because he or she will consider outcomes as well as rights. I should not stray into Welsh matters; they are a matter for Wales, not for me.
	I shall close, as I will be wearying the House, but I make three final points. I remind the House of the bodies that children and young people can go to—rightly—to make complaints: the local authority ombudsmen; the Children's Rights Director; the Commission for Social Care Inspection; a prison or probation officer, in certain contexts; independent monitoring boards for prisoners; the Parliamentary Commissioner; the Special Educational Needs and Disability Rights Tribunal; the family courts, in certain circumstances; and local authority complaints officers. That panoply of rights and redress is already in our legislation. The commissioner's job is not to get involved in the detail but to see whether the systems work and to challenge them, if they do not.
	I remind the House of the changes that we have already made to the commissioner's role, and I thank the House for doing so. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for doing so. We have listened to them. We must have regard to the UNCRC, and we must give powers of entry. The commissioner must undertake inquiries on his own initiative, and he can require responses and make ad hoc reports. We have shifted the basis to be England-plus, and the commissioner must take on board the views of the devolved commissioners. The Secretary of State cannot delay the making of reports and can amend them only to protect the anonymity of a child. The commissioner must produce child-friendly reports. All those measures are the result of this House's wisdom and guidance. We have listened, and we thank the House. However, we do not think that the House is right on this occasion.
	We respect the sincerity of what has been said and the passionate belief that children should be looked after properly—"Amen" to that—but we do not think that the amendment is the way to deliver it. If we divert the commissioner into a focus on rights in complaints, he will not focus on outcomes.
	If the House will not listen to me, it might listen to the most respected, eminent and thoughtful Member of your Lordships' House. He has broken his back and, at times, almost broken his heart on the issue. He has looked into the failures of our systems and services in the most ghastly and tragic cases. He has been a director of social services and a commissioner for the inspection of social services. He has had to carry around the horror of the Victoria Climbié report and has experienced a deluge of complaints from parents. His advice to us is "Leave well alone". I will say no more.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure that we all understand the sincerity of his commitment to the protection of vulnerable children. That is in absolutely no doubt, and we are at one on that. We differ only about the best way to achieve it. I thank all noble Lords who supported my amendment, in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, who was so articulate about the matter.
	I am not asking for rights alone. Your Lordships will notice from Amendment No. 5A that we have left in practical, measurable outcomes. They also appear in the clause about co-operation to improve well-being. That is well and good, but we believe that it is important to put that in the context of the rights of children.
	I am puzzled about why the Government are so against putting the word "rights" into the Bill. Do the Government plan to legislate to remove the power and duty to promote children's rights from the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Children's Commissioners to make them as good as, they believe, the new Children's Commissioner will be? That would be the logical consequence of what the Minister said tonight.
	To the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I say that there is nothing rhetorical about rights. It is a practical matter. He said that the commissioner would have to judge whether a particular case needed to be looked into. The commissioner will have to make judgments every day of his or her working life, and we must trust him or her to do it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, said that the commissioner must have regard to the UNCRC. "Have regard" is not the same thing as having a duty and obligation to promote and safeguard children's rights. That is important.
	To the noble Lord, Lord Laming, I say, with the greatest respect, that, of course, children are covered by human rights legislation, but he will know as well as I do that children's rights, as enshrined in the UNCRC, are different because children are different. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1A) shall be agreed to?
	*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 117.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	2 Clause 2, page 1, line 11, leave out "rights,"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Filkin.)

[Amendment No. 2A not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	3 Clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out "rights,"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Filkin.)

[Amendment No. 3A not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	4 Clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert—
	"(c) consider or research the operation of complaints procedures so far as relating to children;
	(d) consider or research any other matter relating to the interests of children;
	(e) publish a report on any matter considered or researched by him under this section."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Filkin.)

[Amendment No. 4A not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	5 Clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
	"(2A) The Children's Commissioner is to be concerned in particular under this section with the views and interests of children so far as relating to the following aspects of their well-being—
	(a) physical and mental health and emotional well-being;
	(b) protection from harm and neglect;
	(c) education, training and recreation;
	(d) the contribution made by them to society;
	(e) social and economic well-being."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord Filkin.)

[Amendment No. 5A not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	6 Clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out "review and report on" and insert "consider or research"
	7 Clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
	"(3A) Where the Children's Commissioner publishes a report under this section he must, if and to the extent that he considers it appropriate, also publish the report in a version which is suitable for children (or, if the report relates to a particular group of children, for those children)."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	8 Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
	"(4A) The Children's Commissioner is not under this section to conduct an investigation of the case of an individual child."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Filkin.)

[Amendment No. 8A not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	9 Clause 2, page 2, line 30, at end insert—
	"(6A) Where the Children's Commissioner has published a report under this section containing recommendations in respect of any person exercising functions under any enactment, he may require that person to state in writing, within such period as the Commissioner may reasonably require, what action the person has taken or proposes to take in response to the recommendations."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTClause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (7)

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Filkin.)

[Amendment No. 10A not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	11 Clause 2, page 2, line 36, leave out "rights and"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Lord Filkin.)

[Amendment No. 11A not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	12 Clause 2, page 2, line 44, leave out subsection (10)

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	13 Clause 3, page 3, line 1, leave out Clause 3

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No 13. The amendment deletes the existing Clause 3. It should be seen in the context of Amendment No. 25, which creates a new clause on annual reports. I will also speak to Amendment No. 15, moved and passed in Committee in another place, which grants the commissioner powers to obtain responses to the recommendations in his reports produced under Clause 4. That is the same as government Amendment No. 9, to which I have already spoken and which gave the commissioner powers to follow up recommendations. The reasoning behind the amendment is the same.
	The Government believe that the commissioner's reports should, where necessary, lead to action and positive change. We do not want to see his reports disappear without trace. There may be some unpopular recommendations, but that is part of the commissioner's function. The amendment was phrased as simply as possible to allow flexibility in how the commissioner may wish to exercise his power. We have not laid down a response time; we will leave that to the discretion of the commissioner. I hope that the House feels able to accept those changes tabled and passed in another place.
	Amendments Nos. 13 and 25 were passed in another place, inserting a new clause on annual reports and removing the previous Clause 3 seen and debated by this House. The new clause is similar to Clause 3 in that it requires the commissioner to prepare an annual report and outlines the type of information to be contained in the report and the processes involved in laying it before Parliament. The clause differs from the previous one in that it requires that the commissioner report on the way in which he has discharged his function under the whole part, not only under Clause 2. That is why it was moved from its original position in the Bill. That is a necessary alteration because of the additional functions that the commissioner holds on non-devolved or reserved matters in other UK nations, set out in other clauses.
	On annual reports and reflecting on the involvement of children, subsection (2) requires the commissioner to report on the steps that he has taken to involve children in the discharge of his functions. On the publication of reports, subsection (3) requires the commissioner to send a copy of his annual report to the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State lay a copy before each House. The Secretary of State must do that "as soon as possible", to allay concerns voiced in this House on the issue. We do not believe that presenting the report to Parliament via the Secretary of State will in any way compromise independence; it is the normal way in which such reports are brought into Parliament. The Secretary of State has no power to change or alter the annual report in any way.
	Subsection (5) requires reports to be published in a version suitable for children if the commissioner thinks it appropriate. I hope that the House agrees that the clause substantially enhances the previous Clause 3 and will feel able to accept that change. To allay any concerns, the Government tabled Amendment No. 19 in another place to make it explicit that the Secretary of State cannot delay publication of Clause 5 reports, by inserting the words "as soon as possible".
	On the important issue of the involvement of children in choosing the commissioner, let me speak to Amendment No. 32. It has always been the Government's intention to involve children and young people in the appointment of the commissioner. That was one of the points raised when we consulted on Every Child Matters. The process that we envisage will be in keeping with the code of practice of the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we will draw on the experience of colleagues elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The appointment of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, Nigel Williams, was an example of extremely good practice in that respect.
	In July we established a children and youth board made up of 25 children and young people from across the country, selected from a wide range of organisations, both local and national, including the UK Youth Parliament. The board has an important role in the recruitment and selection of the commissioner by contributing to the person specification, producing the design material and taking part in the interview process. We introduced the amendment in another place. It ensures involvement in all future commissioner appointments.
	I hope that all the amendments will be accepted by the House. Where we have been able to, we have gone with the views of the House; where we have not, I hope that I have explained satisfactorily why we think the stance right as it comes from another place.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Lord Filkin.)

Earl Howe: My Lords, I want to register my thanks to the Government for Amendments Nos. 15 and 19. The first responds to a concern raised in this House in Committee, and it is a great pleasure to see the provision in proposed new subsection (6A) requiring a response from those mentioned in the report from the commissioner, when recommendations are contained. I also very much welcome the four words, "as soon as possible", inserted into Clause 5. Again, that gives reassurance that the process involved in the publication of the report will be a speedy one.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I echo the noble Earl in welcoming the group of amendments, many of which reflect that the Government have listened to concerns expressed and responded very appropriately.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	14 Clause 4, page 3, line 22, after "child", insert "in England"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. The Government tabled nine amendments in another place, which were subsequently passed, that clarify the commissioner's role in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendments make the role clearly one of an "England commissioner plus" rather than a "UK commissioner minus", to use the patois that has developed on the Bill. Again, that was in response to the strong views expressed in this House. Doing so does not undermine the role of any existing commissioner, and work can be done with them, possibly under a memorandum of understanding, to minimise possible confusion in the other countries about to whom they should address themselves.
	The key amendments are Amendments Nos. 22 to 24, which add new clauses describing the Children's Commissioner's functions in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The changes that we propose to the Bill maintain the current position—that the commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are wholly responsible for matters in their respective countries that are devolved. That is why the Children's Commissioner's functions now refer to children in England, except in the new clauses introduced by government Amendments Nos. 22 to 24.
	Let me make it quite clear that the Government acknowledge that there will be issues of relevance and interest to children which relate to both devolved and non-devolved matters. Similarly, children—especially children in trouble—may well not know or care how the devolution system works, and which matters are devolved or non-devolved or reserved or excepted. For that reason, in the third subsections of each of the proposed new clauses, we are requiring the Children's Commissioner to take account of the views and work done by his other UK colleagues.
	The commissioners may choose between them to draw up a memorandum of understanding on how best to work together, but that is a matter for them. The Government have no desire to impose any system of working on them; that must be left to their own judgment. That is why we do not mention or prescribe any formal way of working together in the Bill. Similarly, we do not envisage that a child will have to say to itself, "My problem concerns matter X, so I must consult commissioner Y". If a child in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland needs the services of a commissioner, we envisage that they will turn in the first instance to the commissioner in their own country. It will then be for that commissioner to decide if and how his counterpart based in England should be involved, in accordance with the appropriate devolution settlement and any memorandum of understanding or other working agreement drawn up between them.
	I know from earlier debates that some noble Lords would prefer the Children's Commissioner's remit not to extend beyond England. I respect their point of view, but the Government are obliged to act within the parameters of the current devolution settlements as they are.
	Not allowing the Children's Commissioner to have responsibility for non-devolved matters in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would, in practice, mean that children in those countries were deprived of the influence of a commissioner who could bring to bear in Westminster matters decided in Westminster. That cannot be right. I hope that noble Lords will see the benefit of children outside England being able to access the benefit of the services of both commissioners when their problem requires that.
	Given the importance of Amendments Nos. 22 and 24, I could go through them in detail, but perhaps I shall not, as that might weary the House. Perhaps I should move on.
	We are fully committed to establishing sensible working relationships between the commissioners. The Government amendments are the result of lengthy consultation between my officials and those in the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland offices and the Scottish Parliament. My right honourable friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families has also discussed and agreed this with colleagues in the Wales and Scotland Offices. I hope that noble Lords will accept these changes that have been passed in another place, which respect the devolution settlement, but see that it is essential that children are able to obtain redress, both for matters that are devolved and non-devolved without let or hindrance. We believe that this process achieves that. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I do not respect the devolution settlement. I do not believe that devolution should be regarded as settled. It is an ongoing process, as we were promised by the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr Ron Davies, at the time that that legislation was passed.
	Although I am speaking from these Benches, the people of Wales are speaking with one voice. Apart from those Welsh Members of Parliament who are on the Government payroll, all Welsh MPs, all Assembly Members, all local authorities, all non-governmental organisations concerned with children in Wales, and the Richard report say that the Government are taking the wrong tack in this matter.
	The issue is whether there should be a division in responsibility in devolved or non-devolved matters when children's interests are concerned. The Government have proposed that there should be a Welsh commissioner with strong powers to deal with devolved matters and an English commissioner who should come into Wales with weaker powers in relation to non-devolved matters. Why are they weaker? The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, tried to persuade us on the last amendment that the English commissioner was the finest possible template of a commissioner that the world had ever seen. I do not believe that that is true. The reason is that in England the Government propose to spend for each child approximately an eighth of what they propose to spend on children in Wales, a tenth of what they spend in Scotland and a fifteenth of what they spend in Northern Ireland. So the reason the commissioner in England should be so weak is nothing to do with principle, it is to do with cash.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laming, told us in the previous debate that, in his position as Chief Inspector, he received complaints from grandparents, parents and neighbours who were concerned with individual children. He was unable to do anything about that because he thought that he should be much more concerned with procedures and organisations than with individual children. He could not look—

Lord Laming: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I wish to make it plain that I exercised discretion. I chose when it was appropriate and when it was not, which is exactly the Children's Commissioner's position.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord had said something quite different. If I misunderstood him in his previous contribution, I apologise. I thought he was saying that he could not look at individual cases. The commissioner for Wales will be able to do that and the commissioner in England will not. The English commissioner will not be able to examine individual cases, such as the Victoria Climbiés of the future, if a neighbour complains about their position, but he will in Wales—that is the distinction—unless the issue in Wales arises from a non-devolved matter.
	Perhaps we should look at this matter from a practical point of view. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is no longer here, but he said in the previous debate that the amendments proposed on this side of the House would lead to confusion regarding responsibility and accountability. That is precisely what the Government's policy will do in Wales.
	Let us examine the situation of two children in a care home in Wales where one child has been sent there by a local authority and the other has been sent there through the youth justice system. The position of the local authority is a devolved matter. The youth justice system is a Home Office matter. If anything has been proved regarding devolution, it is that the Home Office has clung to power over matters that may happen in Wales. In this example, the Welsh commissioner would be concerned with one child in a care home and could investigate an individual case and the child who arrived through the youth justice system would be the responsibility of the English commissioner, who could not examine that case.
	Another area that is non-devolved is that of benefits. One of the issues that the commissioner in Wales has taken up as a result of the concession given by Lord Williams of Mostyn, when we discussed the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, was that that commissioner could examine non-devolved matters and report to the National Assembly. That is precisely what the Welsh commissioner has done in the case of child poverty. He has produced a report in which he has said that the level of child poverty is a national disgrace in Wales and in the United Kingdom. Only this week he went to the Social Justice and Regeneration Committee of the National Assembly and explained that there were problems of child poverty in Wales and asked it—in the roundabout manner that we have in Wales—to do something about it.
	The manner in which poor children in Wales will best be helped is by an extension of the powers of the Welsh children's commissioner over all matters, whether they are devolved or non-devolved. It would be ridiculous for a child to have to go through the hoops that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has just described, to have its problems addressed. Apparently the child should go to the Welsh commissioner and we were effectively told by the Minister that that commissioner will then decide whether, and how, his counterpart based in England should become involved, in accordance with his own functions, with those of other children's commissioners and with any memorandum of understanding. The memoranda of understanding regarding various matters concerning Wales are arcane documents and, only last week, we were asking that they should be published as a whole.
	There we have two examples: child poverty and the position of children in care homes, who have been sent there through the youth justice system, where there will be a division of accountability and responsibility—precisely the criticism that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made in relation to the last amendment.
	Public opinion in Wales is all one way. It may be that the Government will have their way, but it will not carry Wales with it. The Commission for Equality and Human Rights has issued a statement regretting that the same approach to recognising the need for its activities to be conducted at an all-Wales level, regardless of devolution boundaries, has not been extended to the development of the children's commissioners. The principle, that is the devolution settlement, has been breached for the commission regarding equality and human rights, but it has to be maintained for the children's commissioner. Where is the logic in that? It is total nonsense.
	I have already referred to the Richard commission. All the work that went into that came to the straightforward conclusion that it was essential and necessary for the Children's Commissioner for Wales to have powers over all matters.
	Finally, I refer to the joint statement on the Children Bill by the commissioners for children and young people in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They have all said that they believe it is insidious to give the English commissioner a role in relation to promoting awareness of children's views and interests in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, even concerning reserve matters. They say that it will be confusing for children, who do not think in constitutional terms in relation to the issues that affect their lives. Those are the three people within the United Kingdom with hands-on experience of the role and functions of the Children's Commissioner. They are all opposed to the path that the Government have set themselves.
	As it is in the same group, perhaps I may refer briefly to Amendment No. 22B. Should my attempts to reverse the Government's position fail in relation to Amendment No. 22A, I shall urge your Lordships to support Amendment No. 22B. That amendment would make it absolutely clear that what I might call the "Mostyn amendment" to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act is firmly stated on the face of this Bill—that is, that nothing in this Bill will take away from the Welsh commissioner powers which were bestowed in the settlement that we reached on the issue on the previous occasion. In due course, I shall move Amendment No. 22A and, if that fails, Amendment No. 22B.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, we all want to get this Bill on to the statute book in good time and I am anxious to help it on its way. But I agree very much with the sentiments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. If I recall correctly, I think that we spoke in somewhat similar terms in the debate on the Children's Commissioner for Wales three or so years ago.
	This is another example of the Government enunciating a great principle of devolution but, in fact, undermining it. As we have heard, it has produced protests from the Children's Commissioner, who has used words such as "insidious". He is not in his place but perhaps my noble friend Lord Hunt would regard such attitudes as an example of Celtic rhetoric, although I thought that his own transmogrification as a level-headed man of reason was slightly less than compelling.
	I think that the Welsh commissioner has a clearly understood range of powers. We worked very hard to achieve those three or so years ago with the assistance of our deeply lamented friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. The distinction was made between devolved and reserve powers. That is not very logical in itself as one area does link with another. I remember the observation being made in the previous debate that we talk of joined-up government but children have joined-up lives, and it is very difficult to segregate one from the other in terms of policy and to say that one is, as it were, reserved when it is not.
	I think that what has emerged from the House of Commons—perhaps it will be improved by your Lordships—is objectionable on two fronts. First, it is objectionable in terms of the principle of devolution. I find the idea of an "English commissioner plus" an interesting aspect of imperialism. It seems to me extraordinary—others might even say "insulting"—that an English commissioner should act on behalf of the whole United Kingdom when there are perfectly good commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. At the very least, it can produce confusion. Examples of that have been quoted.
	I also think that, in practice, it is bizarre that such a proposal should come from a Government who gave us devolution. We are back to "For Wales, see England", which disappeared around the time of the First World War but has now been revived and resuscitated under the aegis of the Labour Government who gave us devolution. I find the proposal very odd. In any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, the whole situation is in flux because the Richard commission is being debated and may well affect the balance between the different components of the United Kingdom, including its commissioners. Therefore, it seems to me illogical and almost senseless as a view of devolution.
	I also consider it to be objectionable because it means intruding into Wales and, for that matter, Scotland and Northern Ireland with someone who has weaker powers. By all accounts, the Welsh commissioner has stronger powers, however one defines rights. His role is greater; he has greater powers of inquiry; and he can report on any matter as he sees fit, including matters affecting the Welsh Assembly. I do not consider it desirable that a weaker commission should intrude into the affairs of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, particularly when the English commissioner does not have a rights-based philosophy and has diminished powers.
	Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again. I believe that their proposal is inconsistent with devolution, and it is inconsistent with a proper and coherent strategy for the children of all the nations of these islands. It is rejected by pressure groups, by the commissioners and by the National Assembly for Wales. This is broadly an admirable Bill. We all want to help it on its way. But it seems to me that this is a needless flaw, and I beg my noble friends to think again.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I add my voice from Wales to the request to think again. The Assembly debated this matter fully on 4 May and voted unanimously for the powers of the Welsh commissioner not to be eroded. There is a concern in Wales that the English commissioner is being viewed as having a role "over and above" that will interfere with the role of the Welsh commissioner and undermine confidence in that role.
	The devolution settlement certainly was not fixed in time. We have seen things being moved across to Wales when they had not previously been there, as happened, for example, with the Fire Services Act. Therefore, if the powers are not left principally with the commissioner in Wales, that will be counter to the whole principle of devolution, of managing services locally and of ensuring that the local services meet the needs of the local population.
	Another concern is that we may not always have a government of the same colour in Westminster and in Wales. While there may be a memorandum of agreement at this stage and therefore, because we have government of the same colour in both areas, there may be agreement over the way forward, the political pressures may change enormously. Sadly, the people who will suffer will be the weakest and the most vulnerable. They will not be the politicians; they will be the very children that the Bill is designed to help.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I went through the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill when it was proceeding through the House of Commons. It is clear to me that the Children's Commissioner for England has far fewer powers than the commissioner for Wales. With consummate skill, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford completely demolished the case made by the Government in this respect.
	Parts of the Bill, as amended by the Government and the House of Commons, go against the spirit and letter of devolution and, as the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said, intrude into the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales on matters which are the concern of children in Wales. Surely it should not be the purpose of this Bill to take away powers from the Children's Commissioner for Wales, which effectively it does.
	I believe that, so far as concerns children in Wales, the Bill as it now stands will result in an attempt at protection by remote control from England. That wrong must be put right. Indeed, I believe that it is at the heart of the Richard commission proposals for sorting out these problems and for devolving primary powers to Wales because this kind of debate will be redundant as the whole thing then will be sorted out logically.
	Similar amendments to these were tabled in the House of Commons and defeated. Indeed, these issues directly affect the devolved administrations. The Welsh Select Committee in the other place expressed grave concern about these matters. I think it is significant that all members of the Welsh Select Committee supported the amendments which were defeated in the House of Commons because they were not satisfied with the settlement in the Bill. Sadly, 17 members of the Government's party supported amendments which weaken the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, and I think that the House will judge on that. But the people with real knowledge supported the amendments which put these matters right.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 14, I should like to forge a Celtic alliance with my Welsh colleagues. I do so in awareness of the grave concerns harboured by the recently appointed Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, Mr Nigel Williams.
	It appears odd, to say the least, that this Bill will create a different kind of commissioner for children than those which already exist in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Not only is that the case; the Bill will allow the new English commissioner—while admittedly having to take account of the Northern Ireland commissioner's work—to institute an inquiry without any prior consultation with the Northern Ireland commissioner.
	Would it not be better for the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People to have the lead responsibility for all matters affecting children in Northern Ireland and to work with the English commissioner on the specific matters that are the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament? If this legislation is accepted in its current form, the children's commissioner in Northern Ireland, and indeed the commissioners for Wales and Scotland, could be entirely sidelined and their roles completely undermined. Can the Minister give the House any assurance that that will not happen?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not speak at great length. I am not certain whether this is not one of those issues where, whatever one says, one will not change people's minds. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was commendably clear and honest in his opening remarks when he said that he did not respect the devolution settlement and that there should be an ongoing debate. That is fine. He is utterly entitled to his point of view, and I understand and respect that. However, this is not the place at which to seek to forge change to the devolution settlement. If that were to be done, it would have to be done elsewhere and not on the back of an issue such as this.
	The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said that the English commissioner would be weak. There is nothing further that I can usefully say on that. I have not changed my stance in the past 15 minutes; nor, I suspect, has he.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was concerned about eroding the powers of the Welsh commissioner, as was the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, also expressed those concerns. We are not changing the powers of the Welsh commissioner in any respect.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said that it would not be possible for the Welsh commissioner to have lead responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, gave the good example of two children in the same children's home, both affected by the same issues and concerns, which, for the sake of argument, bring us within the ambit of Clause 4 and raise issues of public policy. In that situation, we would expect the commissioners to strike a memorandum of understanding and agree that one of them, not both, would investigate the issue. He would determine his conclusions and share those with his colleague. Those conclusions would then find their way onwards, if it was a Welsh governance issue, to the Assembly or other parts of Welsh governance, and if it was a non-devolved, UK-wide issue, it would clearly find its way into UK governance. In other words, while the final repository of the actions that the commissioner found as a consequence of his investigations might—how shall I put it—challenge either the Home Secretary or the Assembly, that would be done only as the result of a process which, as far as the children were concerned, was joined up and by which they were not inconvenienced.
	Taking the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I do not believe that it is conceivable that there might be an issue even though the Welsh Assembly and the Government of the day were of different political complexions. One would expect impartial public officials of high probity and a non-party political nature to serve as the commissioners. I therefore do not believe that they would in any way be blown or buffeted by different political perspectives.
	I shall say no more. I do not think that I will necessarily persuade the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, on this issue, much as it sorrows me to say so. I think that the provision is workable and practical. Now is not the time to change the devolution settlement.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	15 Clause 4, page 3, line 39, at end insert—
	"(6A) Where the Children's Commissioner has published a report under this section containing recommendations in respect of any person exercising functions under any enactment, he may require that person to state in writing, within such period as the Commissioner may reasonably require, what action the person has taken or proposes to take in response to the recommendations."
	16 Clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out from "section" to "with" in line 42
	17 Clause 4, page 4, line 1, leave out subsections (8) and (9)
	18 Clause 5, page 4, line 13, after "child", insert "in England"
	19 Clause 5, page 4, line 22, at end insert "as soon as possible"
	20 Clause 5, page 4, line 34, leave out from "section" to end of line 46
	21 Clause 6, page 5, line 1, leave out Clause 6

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 21.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 21.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motions agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	22 After Clause 6, Insert the following new Clause—
	"Functions of Commissioner in Wales
	(1) The Children's Commissioner has the function of promoting awareness of the views and interests of children in Wales, except in so far as relating to any matter falling within the remit of the Children's Commissioner for Wales under section 72B, 73 or 74 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14).
	(2) Subsections (2) to (9) of section 2 apply in relation to the function of the Children's Commissioner under subsection (1) above as in relation to his function under that section.
	(3) In discharging his function under subsection (1) above the Children's Commissioner must take account of the views of, and any work undertaken by, the Children's Commissioner for Wales.
	(4) Where the Children's Commissioner considers that the case of an individual child in Wales raises issues of public policy of relevance to other children, other than issues relating to a matter referred to in subsection (1) above, he may hold an inquiry into that case for the purpose of investigating and making recommendations about those issues.
	(5) Subsections (2) to (7) of section 4 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (4) above.
	(6) Where the Secretary of State considers that the case of an individual child in Wales raises issues of relevance to other children, other than issues relating to a matter referred to in subsection (1) above, he may direct the Children's Commissioner to hold an inquiry into that case.
	(7) Subsections (2) to (7) of section 5 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (6) above."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Thomas of Gresford: rose to move Amendment No. 22A, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
	The noble Lord said My Lords, I have spoken to the amendment with Amendment No. 14.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 95.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: rose to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 22, Amendment No. 22B:
	22B After Clause 6, Line 25, at end insert—
	"(8) Nothing in this section affects the additional power of consideration and representation granted to the Children's Commissioner for Wales by section 75A of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14)."

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 22B is an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 22. I know that the spirit of Lord Williams of Mostyn is with me. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 22, Amendment No. 22B.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22B) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 93.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

23 After Clause 6, Insert the following new Clause—
	"Functions of Commissioner in Scotland
	(1) The Children's Commissioner has the function of promoting awareness of the views and interests of children in Scotland in relation to reserved matters.
	(2) Subsections (2) to (9) of section 2 apply in relation to the function of the Children's Commissioner under subsection (1) above as in relation to his function under that section.
	(3) In discharging his function under subsection (1) above the Children's Commissioner must take account of the views of, and any work undertaken by, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland.
	(4) Where the Children's Commissioner considers that the case of an individual child in Scotland raises issues of public policy of relevance to other children in relation to a reserved matter, he may hold an inquiry into that case for the purpose of investigating and making recommendations about those issues.
	(5) Subsections (2) to (6A) of section 4 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (4) above.
	(6) Subsections (3) to (5) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 65) apply for the purposes of an inquiry under subsection (4) above with the substitution of references to the Children's Commissioner for references to the person appointed to hold the inquiry.
	(7) Where the Secretary of State considers that the case of an individual child in Scotland raises issues of relevance to other children in relation to a reserved matter, he may direct the Children's Commissioner to hold an inquiry into that case.
	(8) Subsections (2) to (6) of section 5 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (7) above.
	(9) Subsections (3) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 65) apply for the purposes of an inquiry under subsection (7) above with the substitution (notwithstanding the provisions of section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46) (general transfer of functions to the Scottish Ministers)) of references to the Secretary of State for references to the Minister.
	(10) In this section, "reserved matter" has the same meaning as in the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46) (see section 30 of and Schedule 5 to that Act)."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.—(Lord Filkin.)

[Amendment No. 23A not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	24 After Clause 6, Insert the following new Clause—
	"Functions of Commissioner in Northern Ireland
	(1) The Children's Commissioner has the function of promoting awareness of the views and interests of children in Northern Ireland in relation to excepted matters.
	(2) Subsections (2) to (9) of section 2 apply in relation to the function of the Children's Commissioner under subsection (1) above as in relation to his function under that section.
	(3) In discharging his function under subsection (1) above the Children's Commissioner must take account of the views of, and any work undertaken by, the Commissioner for Children and Young People for Northern Ireland.
	(4) Where the Children's Commissioner considers that the case of an individual child in Northern Ireland raises issues of public policy which are of relevance to other children in relation to an excepted matter, he may hold an inquiry into that case for the purpose of investigating and making recommendations about those issues.
	(5) Subsections (2) to (6A) of section 4 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (4) above.
	(6) Paragraphs 2 to 5 of Schedule 8 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I.14)) apply for the purposes of an inquiry under subsection (4) above with the substitution of references to the Children's Commissioner for references to the person appointed to hold the inquiry.
	(7) Where the Secretary of State considers that the case of an individual child in Northern Ireland raises issues of relevance to other children in relation to an excepted matter, he may direct the Children's Commissioner to hold an inquiry into that case.
	(8) Subsections (2) to (6) of section 5 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (7) above.
	(9) Paragraphs 2 to 8 of Schedule 8 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I.14)) apply for the purposes of an inquiry under subsection (7) above with the substitution of references to the Secretary of State for references to the Ministry.
	(10) In this section, "excepted matter" has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47)."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24.—(Lord Filkin).

[Amendment No. 24A not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	25 After Clause 6, Insert the following new Clause—
	"Annual reports
	(1) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year the Children's Commissioner must make a report on—
	(a) the way in which he has discharged his functions under this Part, other than functions of holding inquiries;
	(b) what he has found in the course of exercising those functions during the year; and
	(c) the matters he intends to consider or research in the next financial year.
	(2) The Children's Commissioner must in particular under subsection (1)(a) include an account of the steps taken by him to involve in the discharge of the functions referred to in that provision the children in relation to whom those functions are exercised.
	(3) Where the Children's Commissioner makes a report under this section—
	(a) he must send a copy to the Secretary of State; and
	(b) the Secretary of State must as soon as possible lay a copy before each House of Parliament.
	(4) The Children's Commissioner must publish a report under this section as soon as possible after the Secretary of State has laid it before each House of Parliament.
	(5) The Children's Commissioner must also, to the extent that he considers appropriate, publish any report made under this section in a version which is suitable for children.
	(6) In this section, "financial year" has the same meaning as in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	26 After Clause 6, Insert the following new Clause—
	"Care leavers and young persons with learning disabilities
	(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Part, other than section 2(8) and (9).
	(2) Any reference to a child includes, in addition to a person under the age of 18, a person aged 18, 19 or 20 who—
	(a) has been looked after by a local authority at any time after attaining the age of 16; or
	(b) has a learning disability.
	(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—
	a person is "looked after by a local authority" if—
	(a) for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), he is looked after by a local authority in England and Wales;
	(b) for the purposes of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36), he is looked after by a local authority in Scotland;
	(c) for the purposes of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I.1995/755 (N.I.2)), he is looked after by an authority in Northern Ireland;
	"learning disability" means a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which induces significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26.—(Lord Filkin.)

[Amendment No. 26A not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

27 Clause 7, page 5, line 28, at end insert "and emotional well-being"

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to a large group of amendments, none of which I trust will prove controversial. I hope not to take up too much of the time of the House.
	The amendments fall into three broad categories, the first of which covers amendments delivering on Lords commitments. Commons Amendments Nos. 30 and 47 add the British Transport Police to the list of bodies covered by the safeguarding duty. They make good on a commitment we made in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Thomas of Walliswood, during our deliberations in this House.
	The second category comprises amendments to deal with issues which have been raised since the Bill left this House. Commons Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 41 relate to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place because I think that he would take pleasure in this. His amendment added "emotional wellbeing" to the list of outcomes in Clause 7. A number of stakeholders commented to us over the summer that they agreed about its importance, but felt that it would be better placed alongside physical and mental health. We agreed with that. The amendments simply move the reference and make sure that it is included for Wales.
	Commons Amendments Nos. 29 and 73 give the Government a power to specify that special health authorities should also be subject to the duty to make arrangements to discharge functions having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The purpose of this power is to allow us to ensure that NHS Direct is covered by the safeguarding duty. NHS Direct has a surprising amount of contact with children and is represented on many area protection boards. A second amendment to Clause 54 provides that the regulations should be subject to negative resolution.
	Commons Amendments Nos. 31 and 52 respond to concerns which were raised at the regional seminars on Local Safeguarding Children Boards that we held over the summer. Partners should have an ongoing responsibility to come together as an LSCB. We therefore tabled these amendments to ensure that the Bill sends out a strong message that all board partners, not just local authorities, will need to contribute to and participate in the work of LSCBs on an ongoing basis.
	Commons Amendments Nos. 34 to 39, 49, 59 and 60 are all technical improvements to the inspection clauses highlighted by the process of preparing draft regulations and the work on the common inspection framework. Commons Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 set out clearly how programmes of joint area reviews at the Secretary of State's request will be instigated. Commons Amendment No. 36 makes explicit that a purpose of joint area reviews is to assess how children's services work together. Commons Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 clarify aspects of the possible coverage of regulations on the operation of joint area reviews.
	Commons Amendment No. 40 extends the definition of children's services for the purposes of inspection to make sure that it covers the new functions on authorities created by the Bill. Commons Amendments Nos. 49, 59 and 60 extend the scope of inspection in Wales by adding planning functions of a children's services authority relating to education, and make consequential changes to Clause 43 relating to England, ensuring that the functions of a children's services authority in Wales are subject to inspection by the relevant inspectorates.
	Commons Amendments Nos. 43, 48, 51, 53 and 74 reflect our solution to another of those interesting technical challenges that devolution throws up. They represent the outcome of a good deal of discussion between different parts of the UK Government and the Assembly over recent months. We have said in the past that a joined-up approach to children's services in Wales needs to encompass bodies exercising non-devolved functions.
	There is therefore a need for the UK Government to play an appropriate role in approving the commencement of provisions, the making of regulations and the issuing of guidance under Part 3 of the Bill. But it is also true that the different context in Wales means that, when it comes to joint working on children's services, the Assembly is rightly best placed to lead in setting out the overall direction of changes. These amendments give effect to that.
	Amendment No. 64 would remove an anomaly, the now anachronistic requirement on certain authorities to appoint a social services committee. This requirement, which is set out in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, affects a handful of authorities—in fact, merely six: three in Wales and three in England—which do not have executive arrangements. So this will bring them into line.
	Amendment No. 54 provides for the effective sharing of information between the Assembly and CAFCASS following the transfer of CAFCASS in Wales to the Assembly under Part 4 of the Bill. It will be important for both to have a facility which allows them to share information relating to individual cases. For example, there are likely to be cases which may involve children living on either side of the border who may have separate family proceedings officers, both of whose tasks would benefit from sharing information about the two cases. This is an entirely sensible development which emerges from the CAFCASS arrangement in Wales.
	Amendment No. 55 is technical and is needed to reflect the effect of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in terms of the maximum length of prison sentence that could be imposed for an offence of privately fostering when disqualified, should a registration scheme for private foster carers be introduced.
	Amendments Nos. 42 and 50 reflect the fact that a number of NHS trusts in Wales operate across local authority boundaries, with more services being provided in some areas than in others. Trusts would not be under the same duty for all local authorities, therefore leaving some local authorities without co-operation from an NHS trust. Amendment No. 42 therefore places a trust under a duty to co-operate with all local authorities in whose areas they provide services. Amendment No. 50 sets out that NHS trusts will be members of each local safeguarding children board in whose area they provide services.
	I could go into more detail but I hope that I have provided sufficient information to reassure noble Lords that the amendments are acceptable. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.—(Baroness Andrews.)

Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to use the opportunity presented by Amendment No. 48 to say something on the subject of databases, which occupied us for a considerable period at earlier stages.
	When the Bill left this House for another place I believe we all thought that over the course of the summer and during the Bill's passage through the Commons the Government's intentions as regards the new databases would become a whole lot clearer. Despite the welcome changes made to Clauses 9 and 24 in the House of Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, did not attempt to disguise the amount of further work that the department still had to do. So, whilst we were conscious of the unsatisfactory vagueness of the Bill's wording, we were at the same time hopeful that, given an extra three to four months, that vagueness would for practical purposes largely evaporate.
	We could not have been more wrong about that. A consultation paper has been issued but it is obviously too soon for the Government to come forward with any conclusions from it. We can only now await the arrival of the implementing regulations in a few months' time. Those of course will be affirmative regulations and both Houses will have a chance to debate them. But this really is one of those situations where, in order to do justice to what I and many others view as very significant potential breaches of data protection principles, we needed draft regulations and draft guidance in front of us when debating the Bill itself.
	We are still no further forward on the meaning of the phrase "cause for concern". The meaning of that term has to be laid out clearly in guidance so that everyone whose job it will be to put this legislation into practice will understand what the thresholds for raising flags of concern are supposed to be. That surely is a sine qua non if there is to be an effective system for professionals to share subjective judgments of the kind envisaged in Clauses 9 and 24. Anything else will result in confusion. Yet the Government themselves seem unclear what they have in mind.
	Equally, we are no further forward on the question of which practitioners will be obliged to enter their own details onto the database in relation to a particular child and who will have access to such information. This is a terribly important issue. The problem arises with what one might term sensitive services. The attendance by a young person at a sexual health clinic, a pregnancy advisory service, a psychiatrist's practice or an obesity clinic is not information which should be passed automatically or routinely to that child's school head or even to a senior social worker. If such information is routinely shared around, with or without flags of concern, there will be only one consequence, which is that the child or young person will simply not seek the help that he or she needs.
	That is why, in my view, we have to allow professionals a sensible degree of discretion in determining what information is put on to the database. In some situations, it may be neither wise nor safe to disclose sensitive details which are there for all to see. But again, there are mixed messages coming from the Government about whether such discretion will or will not be a feature of the system. The Bill appears to suggest that the rules will be black and white and that there will be no discretion to withhold. That was also the clear impression given by the Minister, Mrs Hodge, in another place. Yet the consultation document, which talks about discretion, directly contradicts that. Both cannot be right. My worry is that if the statute contains a blanket requirement for disclosure, as it does for certain groups of professionals and agencies, this will not, in all circumstances, be consistent with the safety and well-being of children.
	It would be of some comfort if the Bill provided for an individual's consent to certain types of information-sharing or if it said that the best interests of the child should be the basis for professional judgment on whether or not to disclose. But it says neither of those things. I am at a loss to understand why the Government did not take the opportunity in another place to build in qualifying provisions of this sort.
	The really worrying part is that even if the Government come up with proposals that most people are comfortable with—and that is an extraordinarily big "if"—the powers in the Bill are nevertheless capable of being used at some point in the future in a way that would significantly weaken the privacy protection afforded by the Data Protection Act.
	Mentioning the Data Protection Act brings me to my last point, which is transparency. We are no further forward on the question of an appeals procedure. It is perfectly possible to imagine deliberately inaccurate information appearing on a database from someone prompted by vexatious motives. The consequences of that happening could be ruinous to an individual. There are still no safeguards, either in the Bill or in the form of ministerial assurances, to enable anyone to challenge the veracity or the relevance of such information. Certainly, the Data Protection Act does not provide such a safeguard, contrary to assurances given by the Minister in another place.
	I remind the Government of the wide exceptions to subject access under the Data Protection Act that already exist through a whole range of statutory instruments. There is no certainty that people will be able to find out what information is being held on their records because there are a great many ready reasons, perfectly valid in law, for that information to be withheld from them.
	It is too late now, but I really could have wished that the Government had gone at this at a slower pace, not in relation to the Bill as a whole but on this particular set of provisions about information-sharing. They could have piloted databases more widely; they could have waited until they were absolutely clear about what they wanted before bringing primary legislation to Parliament. As it is, through lack of clarity, they have sown the seeds of confusion and suspicion; and on such an important matter as this, that is not at all to their credit.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I very much echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We are broadly supportive of the need to improve information-sharing to ensure that children are better safeguarded. We would have liked a database, if we have it, to cover all children. However, we retain concerns about the type of information to be recorded, particularly the recording of "cause for concern" and the lack of professional discretion about when to record information, particularly in relation to sensitive services.
	We are concerned that while the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, made a commitment to hold a public consultation about causes for concern on 5 July, the long-awaited consultation document was not finally produced until 27 October, five days after the final Commons Standing Committee sitting. There was very little debate on Clause 9 on Report in the Commons.
	While we welcome the consultation and are pleased by the recognition of the concerns that we have raised since the proposals were announced in Every Child Matters and throughout the passage of the Bill, we are very concerned by the contradiction that has been created between the statute and the Government's stated intention in the consultation document. The views expressed there would appear to reinforce the view that the Bill is in need of amendment, yet we have now lost the opportunity to make amendments. If the Government take consultation seriously, it is hard to see why they are insisting on creating a new legal term while at the same time suggesting that it may be altered or replaced. That seems totally illogical.
	Among the portfolio of amendments before us, we are pleased to see "emotional well-being" in its proper place. We echo the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We are delighted to see it alongside "physical and mental health" and not, as it was originally, associated with social and economic well-being.
	We welcome, too, and thank the Government for, the amendments which relate to the British Transport Police and NHS Direct. We are sorry that throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have resisted our attempts to include the refugee agencies alongside others who have responsibilities for safeguarding and promoting welfare. Wearing my hat as education spokesperson, I regret also that schools are excluded from those responsibilities. At a time when so many schools are moving out of local education authority purview, it should be right that schools are included.
	Will the Minister explain Amendment No. 39? It is a very obscure amendment. I read it and I re-read it, but I could not make any sense of it. It struck me as being a rather splendid piece of legalese. It states:
	"Regulations under subsection (9) may make provision authorising or requiring the doing of anything by reference to the determination of a person of a description specified in the regulations".
	Does it mean that anyone can do anything that may be specified in the regulations? That is more or less what I read it as stating.
	Otherwise, there is nothing in this group of amendments that we find contentious in any way. We thank the Government for bringing forward a number of the important amendments in it.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome, albeit qualified, that noble Lords have given to the amendments. I confess that they reprise many of the more substantial debates that we had at earlier stages of the Bill, particularly on information sharing. I would not have expected noble Lords not to take the opportunity, even at this late stage, to raise matters about which they feel strongly in relation to the scope, the nature, the conditions and the terminology of information sharing in their opportunistic way.
	Noble Lords have made the case with consistency throughout the passage of the Bill. That we engaged in the consultation process is testament to our intention to be as transparent as possible and to reflect the complexity of the issue. We welcome the comments that noble Lords have made on that today and will reflect on them as part of that process. I know that my noble friend Lord Filkin has written recently to noble Lords about some of the issues. However, they clearly remain of concern and we will welcome a wider debate during the course of the consultation and when the regulations come before this House. I am sure that this is not the last word in any sense on what will happen; it is a radical and complex development in the way in which we look after and protect children. We shall certainly pay close attention to what has been said this evening.
	On Amendment No. 39, I happen to have a bit of background which I shall do my best to read as intelligently as possible. Amendment No. 39 gives explicit cover for Clause 16(9) regulations to allow inspectorates and commissions discretion over specified matters. For example, for its current inspections of local authority social care functions, CSCI has entry rights to any premises which it "reasonably believes" are, or are proposed to be, used in connection with such functions—so it exercises judgment as to the use of premises. The judgement impacts on others; owners of premises identified by CSCI must allow entry, or face possible sanctions if they refuse entry. This provision is acceptable because it is on the face of the relevant Act, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003.
	For CSCI to have the same entry rights for JARs as for its current inspections as we intend, we shall include provision in regulations under Clause 16(9). It would be unusual for regulations to allow discretion which impacts on a third party—in legal terms, that would amount to "sub-delegation of power"—without express provision on the face of the Bill to allow such discretion. Amendment No. 39 inserts that express provision.
	If the noble Baroness would like me to send her that in writing, I shall happily do so—but I see that she is shaking her head. I take it that between us we have explored the limits and logic of that amendment. We are grateful to noble Lords and look forward to continuing dialogue on these aspects of the Bill in other ways and other places.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	28 Clause 7, page 5, line 32, leave out "emotional,"
	29 Clause 8, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
	"(ca) a Special Health Authority, so far as exercising functions in relation to England, designated by order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section;"
	30 Clause 8, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
	"( ) the British Transport Police Authority, so far as exercising functions in relation to England;"
	31 Clause 10, page 10, line 12, after "establishment", insert "and operation"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 to 31.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 to 31.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	32 Before Clause 14, Insert the following new Clause—
	"Children and young people's plans: England
	(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require a children's services authority in England from time to time to prepare and publish a plan setting out the authority's strategy for discharging their functions in relation to children and relevant young persons.
	(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision as to—
	(a) the matters to be dealt with in a plan under this section;
	(b) the period to which a plan under this section is to relate;
	(c) when and how a plan under this section must be published;
	(d) keeping a plan under this section under review;
	(e) consultation to be carried out during preparation of a plan under this section.
	(3) The matters for which provision may be made under subsection (2)(a) include in particular—
	(a) the arrangements made or to be made under section 7 by a children's services authority in England;
	(b) the strategy or proposals in relation to children and relevant young persons of any person or body with whom a children's services authority in England makes or proposes to make such arrangements.
	(4) The power to make regulations conferred by this section shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 100 of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26), be regarded as included among the powers mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.
	(5) In this section "relevant young persons" means persons, other than children, in relation to whom arrangements under section 7 may be made."
	33 Clause 14, page 11, line 34, after "9", insert "and (children and young people's plans: England)"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
	I shall seek to be crisp in how I speak to these issues, although I can be prolix if that would be more helpful.
	In short, we are rationalising planning requirements on local authorities as part of the process of change. These measures repeal the requirements for seven statutory plans and replace them with a strategic children's and young people's plan. Amendments Nos. 32, 53 and 57 make provision for that in England, and the National Assembly for Wales has a similar policy. Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 58 make provision for planning rationalisation in Wales, which will be taken forward in the context of the different arrangements for children's services there.
	The children's and young people's plan will be wider than local authority services; it will link, for example, plans for health services, youth justice, voluntary community services and connections in drug action for children and young people. Not only will it be consistent with those other plans, but we expect that it will go further and involve joint planning. The needs of children and young people must be met in a holistic way—and that is as true of planning as of any other aspect of providing services. An intention of the duty to co-operate under Clause 7 of the Bill is to ensure that planning is effective across the children's and young people's agenda.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, this set of amendments, as the Minister explained, aims to pull together a set of planning requirements on local authorities at the moment and pull them together into children's and young persons' plans. The aim of those children's and young person's plans, as set out in the summary of regulations distributed by the Minister for Children in another place, was that they should be a statement of local vision for children and young people, in which the children and young people were themselves to play a part in identifying key outcomes and the time scale; the strategic actions of those key outcomes; the commitment by key partners to the delivery of those outcomes; and a statement of how the plans were to play a part in that delivery.
	Those objectives derive from Chapter 5 of Every Child Matters, which suggested a single planning and commissioning function emerging in children's trusts, supported by pooled budgets. We are some way from seeing children's trusts up and running and playing a part. It is notable that, in the amendment, the duty to plan is put only on local authorities, not on any other partners, although subsection (3) of the new clause makes it clear that the plans should include details of the partnership arrangements concluded under Clause 7.
	Planning to co-operate is different from planning to create the local vision for children and young people. Is there not a danger that, in the process, we will lose what we thought we were gaining by bringing the local education and social services authorities together with the local health authority, the police and the youth justice authorities?
	The remarks made by the Minister in the other place about the new clause tell us something of what she had in mind:
	"The core requirement for the plan relates to local authority services for children and young people, but the involvement of other local partners is of fundamental importance. We hope that the plan will link to plans for health services, youth justice, voluntary and community services, Connexions and drugs action for children and young people. Not only do all those plans have to be consistent, but I hope that there will be joint planning. The needs of children and young people must be met holistically. The duty to co-operate in clause 7 is intended to include a duty to plan. Joint planning to improve the well-being of children and young people is a fundamental expression of co-operation".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 19/10/04; col. 219.]
	I ask the Minister for assurances on three issues. First, "hope" is a fine word, full—if I might say so—of aspiration, but can the Minister give us any assurance that we will see the integrated, joined-up thinking on the part of the wider range of authorities that we need, if the Bill is to succeed? Secondly, the Minister said that the duty to co-operate in Clause 7 was "intended" to include the duty to plan. There is nothing in Clause 7 to say that that is so. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the children's services authority must make arrangements to promote co-operation with relevant partners. Subsection (5) makes it clear that relevant partners must co-operate with such arrangements. We need to look at subsection (8), which says that a children's services authority and relevant partners must have regard to the guidance from the Secretary of State.
	Can the Minister give us an assurance that the guidance will make it clear that the duty to co-operate means the duty to draw up and implement plans together? Can he also give us an assurance that, in spite of the Government's resistance to the inclusion of schools, primary care trusts and other health providers as relevant providers, they too will be included?
	Simply planning co-operation arrangements, as is implied by subsection (3) of the new clause, is not good enough. The key principles of Every Child Matters include prevention by early intervention. That requires not just planning to plan or planning to co-operate but actually working together to achieve the ends. Can the Minister explain how we get from the aspirations to the actual?
	Can the Minister explain whether subsection (4) of the new clause lets some authorities—those rated excellent in the comprehensive performance review—get away with producing no plans? Is that right? Even if an authority's children's services are excellent, that will not necessarily be true of the provision of children's health services. Is the clause intended to exclude such authorities from the requirement to produce such plans? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the issues.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, slightly unusually in our procedures the questions are getting harder as the night goes on. I shall do my best tonight but I shall be direct with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She may get a better answer if I write to her very soon setting out the full picture rather than simply using a mixture of extemporisation and the ability to decipher cryptic messages from on high.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I shall be happy for the Minister to write to me but I should like a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library so that it is available for other Peers to see.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I very much agree with that. These are good questions. It is not just a matter of the lateness of the hour. I would be able to give a bit of a "fist" of an answer to these issues but it would not be as precise and detailed as the noble Baroness wants. I do not detect that this is an issue on which we shall divide the House although who knows? Therefore, I can best respond by an early and detailed letter which I shall copy to noble Lords on the other Front Bench and a copy of which I shall place in the Library. I do not normally say that but I believe that would be more helpful to the noble Baroness than a bit of "busking" by me.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	34 Clause 16, page 13, line 3, leave out subsection (1)
	35 page 13, line 8, leave out from "State" to end of line 10 and insert—
	"(a) conduct, in accordance with a timetable drawn up by them and approved by the Secretary of State, a review of children's services provided in—
	(i) the area of every children's services authority in England;
	(ii) the areas of such children's services authorities in England as may be specified in the request;
	(b) conduct a review of such children's services provided in the area of such children's services authority in England as may be specified in the request."
	36 page 13, line 16, at end insert "(and in particular to evaluate how those services work together to improve their well-being)"
	37 page 14, line 6, at end insert—
	"(da) for the provision to members of the public of copies of reports and statements made under paragraphs (c) and (d), and for charging in respect of any such provision;"
	38 page 14, line 10, leave out "subsection (9)(a) and (b)" and insert "subsection (9)"
	39 page 14, line 15, at end insert—
	"(12) Regulations under subsection (9) may make provision authorising or requiring the doing of anything by reference to the determination of a person of a description specified in the regulations."
	40 Clause 19, page 15, line 7, leave out from "means" to end of line 13 and insert—
	"(a) anything done for or in relation to children and relevant young persons (alone or with other persons)—
	(i) in respect of which, apart from section 16, a person or body to which that section applies conducts any kind of assessment, or secures that any kind of assessment is conducted; and
	(ii) which is specified in, or is of a description prescribed by, regulations made by the Secretary of State;
	(b) any function under sections 7 and 10 to 15; and
	(c) any function conferred on a children's services authority under section 9."
	41 Clause 21, page 16, line 7, at end insert "and emotional well-being"
	42 page 16, line 25, leave out from "trust" to "in" in line 26 and insert "providing services"
	43 page 16, line 42, at end insert—
	"(8A) The Assembly must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before giving guidance under subsection (8) at any time after the coming into force of any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4)."
	44 After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
	"Children and young people's plans: Wales
	(1) The Assembly may by regulations require a children's services authority in Wales from time to time to prepare and publish a plan setting out the authority's strategy for discharging their functions in relation to children and relevant young persons.
	(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision as to—
	(a) the matters to be dealt with in a plan under this section;
	(b) the period to which a plan under this section is to relate;
	(c) when and how a plan under this section must be published;
	(d) keeping a plan under this section under review;
	(e) consultation to be carried out before a plan under this section is published;
	(f) implementation of a plan under this section.
	(3) The matters for which provision may be made under subsection (2)(a) include in particular—
	(a) the arrangements made or to be made under section 21 by a children's services authority in Wales;
	(b) the strategy or proposals in relation to children and relevant young persons of any person or body with whom a children's services authority in Wales makes or proposes to make such arrangements.
	(4) Regulations under this section may require a children's services authority in Wales to obtain the Assembly's approval before publishing a plan under this section; and may provide that the Assembly may modify a plan before approving it.
	(5) A children's services authority in Wales must have regard to any guidance given to them by the Assembly in relation to how they are to discharge their functions under regulations under this section.
	(6) In this section "relevant young persons" means the persons, in addition to children, in relation to whom arrangements under section 21 may be made."
	45 Clause 22, page 17, line 7, leave out "section 21" and insert "sections 21 and (children and young people's plans: Wales)"
	46 page 17, line 10, leave out "that section" and insert "those sections"
	47 Clause 23, page 17, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) the British Transport Police Authority, so far as exercising functions in relation to Wales;"
	48 Clause 24, page 20, line 7, at end insert—
	"(11A) Regulations under subsections (1)(a) and (5) may only be made with the consent of the Secretary of State."
	49 After Clause 24, Insert the following new Clause—
	"Inspection of functions under this Part
	(1) Chapter 6 of Part 2 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (c. 43) (functions of the Assembly in relation to social services) shall apply as if anything done by a children's services authority in Wales in the exercise of functions to which this section applies were a Welsh local authority social service within the meaning of that Part.
	(2) This section applies to the following functions of a children's services authority—
	(a) the authority's functions under section 21 or (children and young people's plans: Wales), except so far as relating to education, training or youth support services (within the meaning of section 123 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21));
	(b) the authority's functions under section 23;
	(c) any function conferred on the authority under section 24."
	50 Clause 25, page 20, line 39, leave out from "trust" to "in" in line 40 and insert "providing services"
	51 page 20, line 45, at end insert—
	"(3A) Regulations under subsection (2) that make provision in relation to a Board partner referred to in subsection (3)(a) to (c), (f) or (g) may only be made with the consent of the Secretary of State."
	52 page 21, line 12, after "establishment", insert "and operation"
	53 Clause 28, page 22, line 16, at end insert—
	"(3) The Assembly must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before giving guidance under subsection (2) at any time after the coming into force of any of paragraphs (a) to (c), (f) or (g) of section 25(3)."
	54 After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
	"Sharing of information
	(1) The Assembly and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service may provide any information to each other for the purposes of their respective functions under this Part and Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43).
	(2) A Welsh family proceedings officer and an officer of the Service (within the meaning given by section 11(3) of that Act) may provide any information to each other for the purposes of any of their respective functions."
	55 Clause 38, page 29, line 26, leave out "six months" and insert "51 weeks (or, in the case of an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), not exceeding six months)"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 to 55.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 to 55.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	56 Before Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
	"Payments to foster parents
	(1) The appropriate person may by order make provision as to the payments to be made—
	(a) by a children's services authority in England or Wales or a person exercising functions on its behalf to a local authority foster parent with whom any child is placed by that authority or person under section 23(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41);
	(b) by a voluntary organisation to any person with whom any child is placed by that organisation under section 59(1)(a) of that Act.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	"appropriate person" means—
	(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to a children's services authority in England;
	(b) the Assembly, in relation to a children's services authority in Wales;
	"local authority foster parent" and "voluntary organisation" have the same meanings as in the Children Act 1989 (c. 41).
	(3) In section 23(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), at the end insert "(subject to section (payments to foster parents) of the Children Act 2004)".
	(4) In section 59(1)(a) of that Act, at the end insert "(subject to section (payments to foster parents) of the Children Act 2004)"."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56.
	This is an issue that has not been before us but, as the House will know, was introduced by the Government in another place. It is essentially the issue of how children's needs are appropriately met by ensuring that foster parents are eligible for appropriate allowances to meet those needs.
	We are aware of the diversity of payments being made by authorities. It is clear from the evidence we have and that which others have garnered that some authorities make higher payments than others. One cannot always explain that simply in terms of geography or the age of the relevant child. When one looks at the issues in a little more detail, they become even more complicated. In practice one finds that it is not simply a matter of the allowances that are paid but also of the fees. Some authorities may pay lower allowances and higher fees while other authorities may pay higher allowances but lower fees. So far as one can judge, local authorities are looking at allowances and fees in general and seeking to make judgments about what it is necessary to pay to generate an adequate supply of foster parents.
	The issue is important because we are aware that there is a shortage of foster parents. We and authorities are concerned about the number of out-of-authority placements. This matter touches on issues of more general public policy rather than simply on whether the allowances are appropriate.
	Essentially we are taking a power in the Bill. We shall use that power if we do not think that adequate progress is being made after having investigated these issues thoroughly with local authorities. As was explained in detail in another place, we think it is appropriate that we enter close discussions with the relevant local authorities regarding their practice on the matter, seek to research the detail of what is happening and then reach a judgment on how to move forward. Although we think it is important that we have placed this power on the face of the Bill, we shall research the issue carefully and thoughtfully. It is important to have the power but we will not simply rush into using it without a process of exploration and study with local authorities. That, in short, is what we intend to do. I hope that with that explanation the amendment will find support and favour with the House.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56.—(Lord Filkin.)

Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to make a couple of very brief comments, as I know the noble Baroness would also like to do.
	The Minister is not quite correct in one thing that he said in that this was an issue which excited a lively debate in this House during earlier stages of the Bill. An amendment to which my name was attached was the subject of a very constructive—at least, not a totally destructive—answer from the Minister. I am very pleased, and I am sure that those groups concerned with the fostering and adoption of children, particularly the BAAF, will be delighted by the initiative that the Government have taken in response to the concerns that I and others raised in that debate.
	I realise that the powers are permissive only, but I for one have no complaint about that. I am sure that the Government are right to want to research the issue in full before exercising the power that they have granted themselves, but it is a definite step forward for them to have inserted the provision. As the Minister rightly said, the disparities around the country are really quite extraordinary in some cases and not immediately explicable when one looks at them by reference to local conditions or, indeed, to anything. With those few words of welcome, I am delighted to support the amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, we too very much welcome the Government taking up the issue and listening to the concerns expressed in this House at an earlier stage. I want to ask three brief questions. The Minister said that the power was permissive, which we understand. However, we want to be convinced that, following the consultations, the Government will use it to sort out any anomalies and, we hope, address the shortage of foster parents.
	I noticed that, in the Minister's letter to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, he mentioned that the Government were looking to a timetable of approximately two years for the consultation. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that estimate from the Dispatch Box? He also mentioned in that letter, and again this evening, that the Government intended to consult local authorities. Will the two key voluntary stakeholder organisations, the BAAF and the Fostering Network, also come within those consultations? They have an enormous amount of expertise available to offer the Government on such matters, and I would very much hope that they would be included.
	Can the Minister reassure us that the implementation of the minimum allowance would not be constrained by insufficient resources? The Government might choose to ring-fence the money through a "choice protects" grant. It must be said in that respect that some local authorities already pay good levels of allowances. Others that do not at the moment could, through increasing allowances, save themselves money by reducing the turnover of foster parents, and therefore not having to spend the money that they now spend on recruitment.
	We accept that the matter is complex and requires consultation, but I would be grateful if the Minister reassured me on those three points.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as I feared was the case, it is often a mistake to be brief in the House, because one cuts out of one's response the answers to the questions. They are good questions, so let me respond to them.
	We intend to start the process of consultation with relevant partners early next year, to see what is happening. We then intend to spend 2006 working with local authorities on implementing what we think should be more sensible rates. I have missed out a stage in that process, that of evidence in early 2005, leading to discussions with local authorities and certainly the BAAF and the Fostering Network about what we believe to be appropriate national rates. Clearly, issues of geography and the age of the child will play a part in those discussions.
	In practice, it will be desirable for us to reach agreement with local authorities on what we feel are appropriate national rates, perhaps at the back end of the coming year. Then we would work with those local authorities on appropriate ways of implementing those rates in practice. If all goes well, and maybe it will, one would not need to invoke the power that the Act would give us. That would be fine. Having the power there will help to concentrate all our minds on the importance of making progress on this issue.
	Funding of £113 million over three years has already been made available to local authorities through our Choice Protects grant, which has a specific emphasis on fostering services. The £60 million that will be available in the next financial year will help. Investment in children's services will increase by almost £1 billion by 2007–08, compared with 2004–05.
	The issue of what is or is not funded is sensitive for local authorities. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, wisely said, a number of authorities are already paying those rates. In some cases, I suspect as a product of doing so, they have a better supply of foster parents and more stability in care for looked-after children. That matters. These are the issues that we will be discussing closely and at length with local authority associations and the local authorities.
	I shall say no more at this stage, but that is the timetable for the process.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	57 Clause 42, page 30, line 28, after "9", insert "and (children and young people's plans: England)"
	58 page 30, line 30, after "21", insert ", (children and young people's plans: Wales)"
	59 Clause 43, page 31, leave out lines 7 to 13 and insert—
	" "(2) An inspection of a local education authority in England under this section shall consist of a review of the way in which the authority are performing any function conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority, other than a function falling within the remit of the Adult Learning Inspectorate under section 53 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21).
	(2A) An inspection of a local education authority in Wales under this section shall consist of a review of the way in which the authority are performing—
	(a) any function conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority; and
	(b) the functions conferred on them under sections 21 and (children and young people's plans: Wales) so far as relating to education, training or youth support services (within the meaning of section 123 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21)).""
	60 Clause 43, page 31, line 14, leave out subsection (2)

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 to 60.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 to 60.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motions agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	61 Clause 45, page 31, line 29, after "wishes", insert "and feelings"
	62 Page 31, line 32, after "wishes", insert "and feelings"
	63 Page 31, line 33, at end insert—
	"(2) In section 20 of that Act (provision of accommodation for children: general), in subsection (6)(a) and (b), after "wishes" insert "and feelings".
	(3) In section 47 of that Act (local authority's duty to investigate), after subsection (5) insert—
	"(5A) For the purposes of making a determination under this section as to the action to be taken with respect to a child, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child's welfare—
	(a) ascertain the child's wishes and feelings regarding the action to be taken with respect to him; and
	(b) give due consideration (having regard to his age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain.""

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 63. Not learning from experience, I shall try my hand yet again and really speak succinctly on the amendments.
	These amendments respond to the debates in this House regarding the importance of ensuring that children's feelings, as well as their wishes, are taken into account. It is a classic example of this House making a sound point. Regarding the commitment made by my noble friend Lady Ashton, the Government have proposed amendments to Sections 17, 20 and 47 of the Act. I am pleased that we have been able to find a way to do this. I hope that the House will agree with the amendments.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 63.—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I feel that the Government have responded to this House and I wish to thank them.

Earl Howe: My Lords, it would not be right for me to allow this occasion to pass without some warm words of welcome to the Minister for these amendments. They respond admirably to the concerns that we debated earlier and I, among many others, am very grateful.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	64 After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
	"Social services committees
	(1) Sections 2 to 5 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42) (social services committees) shall cease to have effect.
	(2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (enactments conferring functions assigned to social services committees), for the heading substitute "SOCIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS".
	(3) In section 63(8) of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (c. 46) (instruction), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "relevant enactments", for the words from "for the time being" to "section 2" substitute "are social services functions within the meaning".
	(4) In Schedule 1 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42) (political balance on committees), in paragraph 4(1), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "ordinary committee", for the words from "the authority's" to "any other committee" substitute "any committee".
	(5) In section 102 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (social services functions)—
	(a) omit subsection (1);
	(b) in subsection (2), for "that Act" substitute "the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970"."
	65 Clause 47, page 32, line 5, leave out subsection (2)
	66 After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
	"Children's Commissioner for Wales: powers of entry
	In the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14), in section 76 (further functions of Children's Commissioner for Wales), at the end insert—
	"(8) The Commissioner or a person authorised by him may for the purposes of any function of the Commissioner under section 72B or 73 or subsection (4) of this section at any reasonable time—
	(a) enter any premises, other than a private dwelling, for the purposes of interviewing any child accommodated or cared for there; and
	(b) if the child consents, interview the child in private.""

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 64 to 66.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 64 to 66.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	67 After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
	"Publication of material relating to legal proceedings
	(1) In section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (privacy for children involved in certain proceedings), after "publish" insert "to the public at large or any section of the public".
	(2) In section 12(4) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (c. 65) (publication of information relating to proceedings in private), at the end insert "(and in particular where the publication is not so punishable by reason of being authorised by rules of court)".
	(3) In section 66 of the Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36) (rules of procedure), after subsection (5) insert—
	"(5A) Rules may, for the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, authorise the publication in such circumstances as may be specified of information relating to proceedings held in private involving children."
	(4) In section 145(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) (rules: supplementary), after paragraph (g) insert—
	(ga) authorising, for the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, the publication in such circumstances as may be specified of information relating to proceedings referred to in section 12(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 which are held in private;".
	(5) In section 40(4) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c. 42) (family proceedings rules), in paragraph (a) after "County Courts Act 1984;" insert—
	(aa) authorise, for the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, the publication in such circumstances as may be specified of information relating to family proceedings held in private;".
	(6) In section 141 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) (rules of procedure) at the end insert—
	"(6) Rules may, for the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, authorise the publication in such circumstances as may be specified of information relating to proceedings held in private involving children."
	(7) In section 76 of the Courts Act 2003 (c. 39) (Family Procedure Rules: further provision) after subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) Family Procedure Rules may, for the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, authorise the publication in such circumstances as may be specified of information relating to family proceedings held in private.""

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67.
	The amendment addresses an issue that has become more apparent over recent times, regarding the context within which privacy in children's matters can be addressed. As the House may recall, a judgment was handed down in the High Court by Mr Justice Munby on 19 March on the strictness of interpretation of the privacy aspects of the family courts.
	The effect of that judgment is that publication of any information about a children case, whether or not it would identify the child, is almost always prohibited without the direct permission of the court. Mr Justice Munby held that "publication" covered almost all forms of communication, whether by word of mouth or in writing. That means that Members of this House or of the other place who receive details about family court cases from constituents or others, and who then pass them on, for example to government departments, may, potentially, be committing a criminal offence and/or contempt of court.
	It goes wider. It also affects the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, social services and others who may be equally unclear about their ability to access and use information about family court proceedings.
	This leaves us in a difficult situation. Clearly, children and families going through family proceedings should be able to obtain reasonable support and information by, for example, contacting others—MPs or voluntary organisations—when they think it appropriate. On the other hand, Mr Justice Munby's judgment says that if those bodies do not pass on the information—that is, if they do not do something about it—they are in breach.
	It has been a complex problem and we have been working to find an effective solution. Our aim is to enable those with a legitimate interest to have information from family proceedings while, at the same time, ensuring that the child's welfare—that usually, and in this context, means the child's privacy—is paramount and is protected.
	The effect of Amendment No. 67 will be that the publication of information which is intended, or likely, to identify any child as being involved in family proceedings is prohibited and is a criminal offence only in relation to disclosure to the public or any section of the public. That will make the existing Section 97 of the Children Act less restrictive and more in line with the real world. It means, for example, that those involved in family proceedings can legitimately tell relatives and friends about the proceedings without fear of prosecution.
	The amendment to Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 will also make clear that disclosure cannot constitute contempt where it is explicitly permitted through rules of court, subject to there being nothing else which would mean that the disclosure would amount to a contempt of court.
	The amendment makes a series of changes to existing rule-making powers in other Acts to reflect our intention and—this is the nub of it—to allow rules governing disclosure to be made, effectively by allowing the procedure for making rules of court to be the vehicle for getting the detail of this right. We think that that will address the matter better than attempting to do so in primary legislation. Of course, the usual process for consulting on these issues has been followed.
	The Government consider that the best way is therefore to consult on the formulation of the rules of court, which would specify the detailed basis on which the disclosure of information would be authorised. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept that this is a sensible and effective way to proceed and that it will support the amendment.
	Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67.—(Lord Filkin.)

Earl Howe: My Lords, as the person who tabled the original amendment on these quite complex issues, I want to convey my thanks to the Government for having brought forward these very welcome changes to the rules relating to contempt of court and disclosure in family court cases. I feel certain that the amendments will be particularly welcome to parliamentarians in both Houses and should not, I trust, disconcert the courts.
	Perhaps I may be allowed to add one coda. Wider issues of privacy and confidentiality in family court proceedings are, as I am sure the Minister is aware, the subject of discussion, and perhaps concern, among a number of members of the legal profession, including, I believe, a number of members of the judiciary.
	The Minister will know that the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee of another place is currently looking at the rules surrounding the family court system. I welcome that scrutiny because I think that, with the family court system having been in place for a dozen years or more, the time is ripe for an across-the-board review of how the system is working and whether it is fulfilling Parliament's expectations of it in all respects. I think that in many ways it has fulfilled those expectations, but there may be some areas which we could usefully consider with a view to improving the transparency of the system. I hope that we may have an opportunity to return to these matters over the coming months.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Government for bringing forward this amendment. It may very well turn out to be an appropriate way of dealing with the problem. Only time will tell, and I am content to let it.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank noble Lords on both Front Benches for their responses. With regard to the wider issue of privacy in family proceedings raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I, too, noticed much of what the President of the Family Division, Mr James Munby and the other eminent judge, whose name I forget, said at the Select Committee yesterday on many issues.
	Clearly, by that she was saying that this was an area for reflection, rather than thinking that we have reached perfection. I shall not speak for my former department, but I think that it will be interested to have discussions with colleague Ministers in other departments about this. Without wishing to raise hopes of imminent change, I think it is an issue that benefits reflection. I shall say no more.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	68 After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
	"Disclosure of information by Inland Revenue
	(1) In Schedule 5 to the Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21) (use and disclosure of information), after paragraph 10 insert—
	"Provision of information by Board for purposes relating to welfare of children
	10A (1) This paragraph applies to information, other than information relating to a person's income, which is held for the purposes of functions relating to tax credits, child benefit or guardian's allowance—
	(a) by the Board, or
	(b) by a person providing services to the Board, in connection with the provision of those services.
	(2) Information to which this paragraph applies may be supplied to—
	(a) a local authority in England and Wales for use for the purpose of any enquiry or investigation under Part 5 of the Children Act 1989 relating to the welfare of a child;
	(b) a local authority in Scotland for use for the purpose of any enquiry or investigation under Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 relating to the welfare of a child;
	(c) an authority in Northern Ireland for use for the purpose of any enquiry or investigation under Part 6 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I.2)) relating to the welfare of a child.
	(3) Information supplied under this paragraph is not to be supplied by the recipient to any other person or body unless it is supplied—
	(a) for the purpose of any enquiry or investigation referred to in sub-paragraph (2) above,
	(b) for the purpose of civil or criminal proceedings, or
	(c) where paragraph (a) or (b) does not apply, to a person to whom the information could be supplied directly by or under the authority of the Board.
	(4) Information may not be supplied under sub-paragraph (3)(b) or (c) without the authority of the Board.
	(5) A person commits an offence if he discloses information supplied to him under this paragraph unless the disclosure is made—
	(a) in accordance with sub-paragraph (3),
	(b) in accordance with an enactment or an order of a court,
	(c) with consent given by or on behalf of the person to whom the information relates, or
	(d) in such a way as to prevent the identification of the person to whom it relates.
	(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (5) to prove that he reasonably believed that his disclosure was lawful.
	(7) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (5) is liable—
	(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both;
	(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;
	(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
	(8) In sub-paragraph (2) "child" means a person under the age of eighteen and—
	(a) in paragraph (a), "local authority" has the meaning given by section 105(1) of the Children Act 1989;
	(b) in paragraph (b), "local authority" has the meaning given by section 93(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995; and
	(c) in paragraph (c), "authority" has the meaning given by Article 2 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I.2)).
	(9) The reference to an enactment in sub-paragraph (5)(b) includes a reference to an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament."
	(2) In relation to an offence committed under sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 10A of Schedule 5 to the Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21) (as inserted by subsection (1) above) before the commencement of section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in sub-paragraph (7)(b) of that paragraph to twelve months shall be read as a reference to six months."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68. It was prompted by concerns about local authorities' access to Inland Revenue information.
	Following its transfer from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Inland Revenue, the Child Benefit Office was legally prohibited from providing information to local authorities for the purposes of assisting in child protection inquiries. The reason is that the Child Benefit Office, on moving into the Inland Revenue, now falls within the strict confidentiality laws which exist to protect the privacy of data provided by the Inland Revenue's customers.
	However, when the Child Benefit Office was part of the Department for Work and Pensions, it often quite legally and quite properly shared information with local authorities for the purpose of assisting with child protection inquiries, particularly in relation to the possible location of a missing family or child about whom there were concerns.
	We understand from the Commission for Social Care Inspection that local authorities found this to be a useful source of information for such inquiries, especially where emergency action was needed.
	We therefore tabled the amendment to amend Schedule 5 to the Tax Credit Act 2002 to give the Inland Revenue lawful authority to provide local authorities with the limited amount of information relating to children they might need from the revenue for the purpose of investigating concerns about a child's welfare. Such inquiries will generally be under Section 47, which requires local authorities to make inquiries where they suspect a child is at risk of significant harm.
	The new clause mirrors the other information-sharing gateways in Schedule 5 to the Tax Credit Act 2002, all of which contain provisions to ensure that the information is used only for the purposes for which it is provided. Government Amendment No. 159 provides that the amendment would come into force on the day the Children Bill receives Royal Assent.
	We do not believe that the revenue will be the first port of call for local authorities, and so we would expect to see local authorities using this amendment only to seek information from the revenue in limited circumstances, and on a case by case basis. But in those few cases we do want the revenue to be able to disclose information—for example, the names and details of a family's address—which could be crucial to protecting children who may be at risk of imminent and significant harm. I hope therefore that in that circumscribed way noble Lords will agree to make such information available to local authorities through this amendment.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68.—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, the amendment appears to be totally justified in the interests of safeguarding children. I welcome it. I just say that the idea of us all being customers of the Inland Revenue strikes me as rather droll; the word "victim" springs to mind.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	69 Before Clause 52, insert the following new clause—
	"Repeals
	"The enactments specified in Schedule (repeals) are repealed to the extent specified."

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the amendments in this group are technical and consequential on the previous debates. I hope that noble Lords will be content for me to move them formally. Amendment No. 81 would remove the privilege amendment. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69.
	Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69.—(Baroness Andrews.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	70 Clause 52, page 33, line 20, leave out "section 2(10)" and insert "section (care leavers and young persons with learning disabilities)"
	71 Clause 53, page 34, line 22, at end insert—
	"(3A) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing the first order under section (payments to foster parents) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."
	72 Page 34, line 25, after "apply", insert—
	"(aa) an order made by the Secretary of State under section (payments to foster parents) to which subsection (3A) does not apply,"
	73 Page 34, line 26, after "under", insert "section 8(1)(ca) or"
	74 Clause 54, page 34, line 36, at end insert "subject to subsections (3A) and (3B).
	(3A) The Assembly must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before making provision under subsection (3) in relation to section 21(4)(a) to (c) or 25(3)(a) to (c), (f) or (g).
	(3B) In section 23, the following provisions come into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State after consulting the Assembly—
	(a) subsection (1)(d) to (g);
	(b) subsection (2), so far as relating to the persons and bodies referred to in subsection (1)(d) to (g);
	(c) subsection (5)."
	75 Page 35, line 3, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
	"( ) section 41 and Schedule 4 so far as relating to England come into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State, and so far as relating to Wales in accordance with provision made by order by the Assembly;
	( ) section (payments to foster parents) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
	( ) sections 42 to 48 so far as relating to England come into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State, and so far as relating to Wales in accordance with provision made by order by the Assembly;"
	76 Page 35, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) section (Children's Commissioner for Wales: powers of entry) comes into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Assembly;
	( ) section (publication of material relating to legal proceedings) comes into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Lord Chancellor;
	( ) section (disclosure of information by Inland Revenue) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed."
	77 Page 35, line 12, at end insert "except that Schedule (repeals) comes into force in accordance with the commencement provisions set out in that Schedule"
	78 Clause 55, page 35, line 16, leave out "5" and insert "4"
	79 Page 35, line 16, at end insert—
	"( ) In Part 5—
	(a) sections 37 to 51, (Children's Commissioner for Wales: powers of entry) and (publication of material relating to legal proceedings) extend to England and Wales only;
	(b) section (disclosure of information by Inland Revenue) extends to the whole of the United Kingdom."
	80 Page 35, line 17, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	"(3) In this Part—
	(a) section (repeals) and Schedule (repeals) extend to England and Wales only; and
	(b) the remaining provisions extend to the whole of the United Kingdom."
	81 Clause 56, page 35, line 20, leave out subsection (2)
	82 Schedule 1, page 36, line 19, at end insert—
	"(1A) The Secretary of State must, to such extent and in such manner as he thinks fit, involve children in the appointment of the Children's Commissioner."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 70 to 82.
	Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 70 to 82.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	83 Schedule 4, page 44, line 7, at end insert—

"Hotels etc

In Schedule 9A, after paragraph 2 insert—
	"2A (1) Part XA does not apply to provision of day care in a hotel, guest house or other similar establishment for children staying in that establishment where—
	(a) the provision takes place only between 6 pm and 2 am; and
	(b) the person providing the care is doing so for no more than two different clients at the same time.
	(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), a "client" is a person at whose request (or persons at whose joint request) day care is provided for a child.""

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83. It addresses a current anomaly in the childcare registration arrangements operated by Ofsted. The intention is to bring hotel babysitting more in line with babysitting on domestic premises.
	We believe that what is essentially a private short-term arrangement between a parent and a babysitter in a hotel should be outside the scope of the normal registration arrangements. This should apply to babysitters on hotel premises, just as it does to those on domestic premises. But the proposed change allows for unregulated hotel babysitting only on a very small scale. Parents must take responsibility for ensuring that babysitters are suitable. The exemption applies in situations in which no more than two families' children are being looked after between 6 p.m. and 2 a.m. That is to ensure that Ofsted continues to register other kinds of hotel childcare services, which are clearly day care rather than babysitting.
	We hope that the amendment strikes an appropriate balance between the freedom of parents to make informal arrangements for the care of their children in hotels and ensuring that more formal childcare arrangements are properly regulated.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	84 After Schedule 4, Insert the following new Schedule—
	"Repeals
	Part 1
	Plans
	
		
			  
			 Short title and chapter Extent of repeal 
			 Children Act 1989 (c. 41) In Schedule 2, paragraph 1A. 
			 Education Act 1996 (c. 56) Section 527A. 
			 Education Act 1997 (c. 44) Section 9. 
			 School Standards and  Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) Section 2. 
			  Sections 6 and 7. 
			  Sections 26 to 26B. 
			  In section 27(2), the words"section 26,". 
			  Section 119(5)(b) and thepreceding "and". 
			  Sections 120 and 121. 
			  In Schedule 6—   (a)   paragraph 3(4)(b) and thepreceding "and";   (b) paragraph 8(4). 
			  In Schedule 30, paragraph 144. 
			 Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) In Schedule 7—   (a) paragraph 35(2)(b);   (b) paragraph 42(2)(a). 
			  In Schedule 9, paragraphs 80 and 81. 
			 Adoption and Children Act2002 (c. 38) Section 5. 
			 Education Act 2002 (c. 32) In section 150—   (a) subsections (2) to (4);   (b) in subsection (5), the wordsfrom "and early yearsdevelopment plans" to"childcare plans"". 
		
	
	These repeals come into force—
	(a) so far as relating to England, in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State;
	(b) so far as relating to Wales, in accordance with provision so made by the Assembly.
	Part 2
	Child minding and day care
	
		
			  
			 Short title and chapter Extent of repeal 
			 Children Act 1989 (c. 41) In section 79F(1) and (2),paragraph (b) and thepreceding "and". 
			  In section 79G(2), thewords "under section79F(3)". 
			  In Schedule 9A—   (a) in paragraph 4(3A)(b), the words "to his registration";   (b) in paragraph 4(4), the words ", or have any financial interest in,";   (c) in the heading beforeparagraph 7, the word"Annual". 
		
	
	These repeals come into force—
	(a) so far as relating to England, in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State;
	(b) so far as relating to Wales, in accordance with provision so made by the Assembly.
	Part 3
	Inspection of local education authorities
	
		
			  
			 Short title and chapter Extent of repeal 
			 Disability Discrimination Act1995 (c. 50) Section 28D(6). 
		
	
	This repeal comes into force—
	(a) so far as relating to England, in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State;
	(b) so far as relating to Wales, in accordance with provision so made by the Assembly.
	Part 4
	Social services committees and departments
	
		
			  
			 Short title and chapter  Extent of repeal 
			 Children and Young PersonsAct 1933 (c. 12) In section 96(7), the wordsfrom "Subject to" to "thatcommittee)". 
			 Children and YoungPersons Act 1963(c. 37) In section 56(2)—   (a) the words "and subsection (1) of section 3 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970";   (b)the words "and section 2 ofthe said Act of 1970respectively". 
			 Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42) Sections 2 to 5. 
			 Local Government Act 1972(c. 70) Section 101(9)(f). 
			 Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20) In section 14, the words "oftheir social servicesdepartment". 
			 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) In section 63B(10), in thedefinition of "appropriateadult", the words "socialservices department". 
			 Local Government andHousing Act 1989 (c. 42) Section 13(2)(c). 
			  In Schedule 1, in paragraph 4(2)—   (a)   in paragraph (a) of thedefinition of "ordinary sub-committee", the words from "of the authority's" to "any other sub-committee"; and   (b)   the definition of "social services committee". 
			 Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53) In sections 43(5) and 65(1)(b) and (1B)(a), the words "social services department". 
			 Crime (Sentences) Act 1997(c. 43) In section 31(2A)(b), the words "social services department of the". 
			  In Schedule 1, in the table inparagraph 9(6), the words"social services department". 
			 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) The words "social servicesdepartment" in—   (a) section 1AA(9) and (10)(a);   (b) section 8(8)(b);   (c) section 9(2B)(b);   (d) section 11(8)(a);   (e) section 18(4)(a);   (f) section 39(5)(b);   (g) section 65(7)(b);   (h)section 98(3) (in the words substituted by that provision). 
			 Powers of Criminal Courts(Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) The words "social servicesdepartment" in—   (a) section 46(5)(a) and (b);   (b) section 69(4)(b), (6)(a) and (10)(a);   (c) section 73(5);   (d) section 74(5)(b) and (7)(a);   (e) section 103(3)(b) and (5)(a);   (f) section 162(2)(a) and (b). 
			 Local Government Act 2000(c. 22) Section 102(1). 
			 Criminal Justice and CourtServices Act 2000 (c. 43) In section 64(6), in thedefinition of "appropriateadult", the words "socialservices department". 
			 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) The words "social servicesdepartment" in—   (a) section 158(2)(b);   (b) section 161(8)(b);   (c) section 199(4)(b);   (d) paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 38 (in the words substituted by that provision). 
		
	
	These repeals come into force—
	(a) so far as relating to England, in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State;
	(b) so far as relating to Wales, in accordance with provision so made by the Assembly.
	Part 5
	Reasonable punishment
	
		
			  
			 Short title and chapter Extent of repeal 
			 Children and Young PersonsAct 1933 (c. 12) Section 1(7). 
		
	
	This repeal comes into force at the same time as section 49.
	Part 6
	Child safety orders
	
		
			  
			 Short title and chapter Extent of repeal 
			 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) Section 12(6)(a) and (7). 
		
	
	These repeals come into force at the same time as section 51."
	85 In the Title, Line 7, leave out "and about child safety orders" and insert ", child safety orders, the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the publication of material relating to children involved in certain legal proceedings and the disclosure by the Inland Revenue of information relating to children"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 and 85.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 and 85.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the Opposition Front Benches for their commitment to the Bill. There have been occasions when, sadly, we have not seen with one eye, particularly tonight, but the commitment from all parts of the House to legislate to change practice in the world to make it better for children is respected. I think that the House has been of great benefit in that respect and I look forward to working with my new opposition partners, if I can so put it, on other issues. I also thank the Bill team, who have been redoubtable as ever. I extend particular thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for all her leadership and work on the Bill.

Human Tissue Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at seven minutes past nine o'clock.